[PD] jMax Phoenix

[Bernardo Barros]

the only solution I see to write this kind of things in Max-like
languages is to allow the user to just open a text-box and write what
he/she wants in python or supercollider :-) that's for control
structures, loops, etc

2010/9/22 Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 9/22/10, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
>
>> From: IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
>> Subject: Re: [PD] jMax Phoenix
>> To: pd-list at iem.at
>> Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 6:36 PM
>> On 2010-09-22 16:48, Jonathan Wilkes
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > expr if(bx<=20, if (py<=by &&
>> py+60>=by, 0, 1), -1);
>> > if (bx>=415, 2, -1);
>> > if (by<=0, 4, if (by>=500, 5, -1))
>> >
>>
>> honestly i find this hard to read as well, esp. compared to
>> traditional
>> C-like syntax:
>>
>> if(bx<=20)
>>   if(py<=by && py+60>=by)
>>     return 0;
>>   else
>>     return 1;
>> if(by>=415)
>>  return 2;
>> else
>>  return -1;
>> if(by<=0)
>>  return 4;
>> else if (by>=500)
>>  return 5;
>
> Yes, Max/MSP's [if] object has a more readable syntax.  Yet even
> with the two nested "ifs" I find it easier to read than your
> implementation because I don't have to look up to the inlet to
> remind myself which list elements correspond to which variable.
>
> I could put comments closer to each object chain, but then that's
> even more objects.
>
>>
>>
>> and as a matter of fact, i don't think the
>> pd-implementation of the
>> algorithm is so bad.
>
> Yes, IMO the way you implemented it is nice because there are
> very few wires crossing over objects.
>
> I'd also mention I find it more difficult to patch your
> implementation because there are 25 objects (not including the
> number boxes), 16 of which correspond to the args of [expr] in
> my implementation.  That's 16 objects for which I have to change
> modes between the mouse (for connections) and the keyboard (for
> text).
>
> With [expr] I find it conceptually easier (and more ergonomic) to
> set up my [v] objects, my [sel], and my [outlet], then code the
> entire algorithm inside one box.
>
> Btw- you can get rid of 3 overlapping wires if you put [value py]
> closest to [unpack 0 0 0] and cascade them that way.
>
> -Jonathan
>
>> the only awkwardness in my implementation i find is the
>>  [*-1]->[moses 0]
>> , which one could simply replace by [moses -1] (supposed we
>> don't care
>> about values between -1 and 0) (or with a
>> [<=0]->[select 1] which i
>> didn't do for conceptual reasons)
>>
>> fgmasdr
>> IOhannes
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list at iem.at
>> mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>