[PD] settable receive again (was: ipoke~ ?)
Jonathan Wilkes
jancsika at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 8 00:43:35 CEST 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
> To:
> Cc: "pd-list at iem.at" <pd-list at iem.at>
> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 4:48 AM
> Subject: [PD] settable receive again (was: ipoke~ ?)
>
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 08:56 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
>> > To: pd-list at iem.at
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 4:26 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:53 +0200, Jeppi Jeppi wrote:
>> >> Hey,
>> >> I wonder whether there is something similar to Max' ipoke~
> (an
>> >> interpolating buffer~ writer) for Pd. I should need it for some
>> >> physical modelling and resampling stuff. Otherwise, I could
> implement
>> >> it myself. It seems only interpolated reading is available
> (tabread4~
>> >> and similar ones), not writing.
>> >
>> > This somehow reminds of the thread about settable [receive].
>>
>> Whether or not the user who started the settable [receive] thread really
>> needed a settable receive, there are situations where it's needed, like
>
>> wrapping s/r in abstractions so that I don't have to prepend a $0-
> which,
>> in 95% of cases is what I want, and using a 2nd arg for setting scope for
>> the other 5% of situations.
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand. Can you elaborate this?
I've posted about it before. Just imagine [s] inside abstraction [foo] and
[r] inside abstraction [bar]. I want to type [foo blah] and have my abstraction
set the inner [s] symbol to [parent-$0]-blah. Easy enough. Similarly, I want
[bar blah] to set its inner [r] symbol to [parent-$0]-blah. Roadblock.
The scope stuff is more involved than that, but that's enough of an example to
demonstrate a use case for a dynamically settable [receive].
>
>> There, not having a
>> settable receive leads to hacky solutions like dynamic-patching or
>> feeding a message-box with a semicolon, the receive-symbol, and
>> the message (which also requires a hack to get "list foo" to
> remain
>> "list foo" when it comes out). Both of those solutions are
> obscure and
>> way more error-prone than simply sending a symbol to an inlet.
>
> Sure, I wasn't advocating to substitute a settable receive by some
> dynamic patching hack. I just happened not to be able to think of a case
> that absolutely needs a settable receive (and am sorry for not yet
> understanding the one you provided above).
>
>> And the historical replies to a user wanting a settable receive of
> "why do
>> you want to do that" are misleading, because the real question was
>> "why do you want to do that when there's a long-standing bug--
> even in
>> all the iemguis-- that may cause a crash by doing that?"
>
> There never was a bug in [r ], afaik.
There's a bug in [iem_r] and all the other alternatives to [r] that tried to
add that functionality, plus the iemguis which are internal objects.
> I didn't know about the fact, that
> adding an inlet to [r] would imply implementing a bug before it was
> mentioned in this thread and I always thought, that for conceptual
> reasons it was never implemented. And for some reason I haven't missed
> it in all those years of Pd patching.
What are the conceptual reasons?
-Jonathan
>
>
>> Anyway, Ivica apparently has fixed the issue.
>
> That's good.
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list