[PD] [coll] bug

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-02-01 15:42 GMT-02:00 Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>:

> more Max-like makes plenty of sense since there is the load termination
> bang outlet
>

totally


> but I would want the deviation from Pd-like control object behavior
> prominently documented (probably with a compare/contrast with [soundfiler]).
>

sure, I'm all for making the documentation as clear and detailed as
possible - been doing that so far, no detail is being left out, not only
when it comes to backwards compatibility issues, but also with other
details regarding inconsistencies and other max vs pd issues.


> Then, for other Pd users, we need an easy way to make it run in one DSP
> tick; all things considered I'd rather have a custom attribute for that
> than a special argument.
>

+ 1


> Might be a pain for backwards compatibility, but I think less so than
> switching the inlets of [pow~] was when it became clear it was necessary.
>

Vastly less so... the case of [pow~] was much more drastic as it really
needed changing every patch, as its structure was completely swapped. Let
me stress how nothing like that would happen to [coll], any change is only
to how it relates another possible element in the patch (trigger) in one
possible case, and only when it comes to one of its methods (out of 40).

cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170201/6b85dd63/attachment.html>