[PD-dev] how math objects respond to a bang

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Feb 13, 2006, at 7:13 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>
>>
>>> i agree that [clip] should respond to bang. i am not that sure about
>>> [atan2]: personally i think that atan2 is a unop (the values are just
>>> there for get all 4 quadrants) and the 2nd inlet shouldn't be there  
>>> at
>>> all.
>>
>>
>> man atan2
>>
>> And then tell me how many args it takes in C. Then try it in Perl,  
>> Ruby,
>> whatever. It's all the same. It's a two-input operator. So let it  
>> behave
>> the way two-input operators do.
>
> i do not see how this contradicts my earlier mail.
> obviously, "atan2" takes 2 arguments, but they can be seen as parts
> (real/imag, nominator/denominator) of _one_ value ("numeric entitiy" or
> whatever the math name would be, i dunno)
> therefore i (still) think that "atan2" is kind of an unop, even though
> it needs 2 values, in any language.
> for various reasons (lack of imaginary numbers, history,...), atan2 is
> implemented as binop in most (if not all) languages.
>
> a variable "ö" would be written in most prog.languages (except java,  
> but
> who writes java...) with 2 letters, even though it is really a single
> letter. so what?
>

I forgot to mention, what is the harm in having arguments and a bang  
method for [atan2]?  A bit of extra memory use?

.hc

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
                                                               -  
Eldridge Cleaver