[PD] Purpose of sig~

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2010-11-03 15:46, Jamie Bullock wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This is more of philosophical question than anything else. I'm curious to know why [sig~] hasn't been designed out of Pd. Why not have implicit control -> signal conversion everywhere it is possible?
> 
> For example why not allow this?
> 
> |2(	|3(
> |	|
> [+~ ]
> 

i don't think i understand your question.
the above is totally legal on the versions of Pd i have installed on
this machine.

otoh, [sig~] has been there for ages and longer.
some old patches might still use it, because _then_ you had to
explicitely convert to signals. should [sig~] be removed and break these
patches?

and while i do use implicit float/signal conversion in my patches, i
think explicit conversion is not that bad either: it may prevent people
from hooking a slider into a [*~] and then complain why they get glitches.

fgmasdr
IOhannes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20101104/459f59e0/attachment.bin>