[PD] getting [inlet~] to accept data

[Ivica Bukvic]

While I don't know much about the draw group yet, it is conceivably
possible the order by which inlets are created and depending on what kind
they are could have something to do with it.

Best,

-- 
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
Associate Professor
Computer Music
ICAT Senior Fellow
Director -- DISIS, L2Ork
Virginia Tech
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-6139
ico at vt.edu
www.performingarts.vt.edu
disis.icat.vt.edu
l2ork.icat.vt.edu
On Sep 19, 2015 11:11 PM, "Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list" <
pd-list at lists.iem.at> wrote:

> It doesn't look to be much different atm.
>
> In fact, I can't even figure out how subpatches actually reorder their
> inlets and outlets when you add new [inlet] and [outlet] objects inside
> them.  I have an
> object in Pd-l2ork called [draw group], which is essentially just a
> subpatch
> with an inlet-- to set graphical attributes-- and an outlet-- to receive
> event
> notifications.  Thing is, my extra outlet will appear as the leftmost
> outlet when I
> load the patch, while my extra inlet will always be the furthest to the
> right (like
> with the pointer inlet in [append].)
>
> Looking at the reordering code for inlets vs. outlets, I can't see any
> obvious
> differences.
>
> -Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:50 PM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I worked on this for a while in 2008. A big part of the problem is that
> the architecture for first/main inlets is quite different from generic
> inlets, which do not respond to both signals and messages. [inlet~] does
> (or at least is supposed to) promote floats to signals, but it won't pass
> other kinds of messages; and it seemed like too deep a problem to be solved
> without a pretty serious overhaul. This was a number of years ago and
> things may have changed since then, but I don't think so (though I'd be
> glad to be wrong).
>
> Matt
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
> wrote:
>
> I was wondering about that too! After a quick search in the mailarchives
> I've found this discussion from 2008:
> http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2008-06/062895.html
>
> @IOhannes: What's the state now? How difficult would it be to make an
> [inlet~] external which, for example, passes signals to a left outlet and
> all messages (also floats!) to a right outlet. Or which passes everything
> it receives and then you could use [route~] from zexy to separate signals
> from messages?
>
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 18. September 2015 um 12:49 Uhr
> *Von:* "Liam Goodacre" <liamg_uw at hotmail.com>
> *An:* "pd-list at lists.iem.at" <pd-list at lists.iem.at>
> *Betreff:* [PD] getting [inlet~] to accept data
> Many objects (ie. [osc~]) have a sort of a hybrid inlet which accepts both
> signal and data input. However, the [inlet~] object seems to reject data.
> If I wanted to build an abstraction with an [inlet~] that accepts both
> signal and data, is there any other way?
> _______________________________________________ Pd-list at lists.iem.at
> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20150919/ca5a1f53/attachment.html>