[PD-dev] Re: avoiding reuse of vectors in multichannel external

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> 
> IOhannes m zmoelnig:
> 
>>>
>>> 2)
>>> what i could glean from the docs/pdf's there is no way a signal inlet
>>> could be used for message-input at the same time, is that correct or  is
>>> there a hack to get this work? i specifically need the left-most  inlet
>>> to set the objects state etc. what the standard way of dealing  with
>>> this in PD?
>>
>>
>> i don't know which docs/pdf's you are exactly reading, but pd has no
>> problem with the first (leftmost) inlet accepting both signals and
>> messages.
>> there are plenty of externals that do that. have a look at [fiddle~] or
>> [bonk~].
>>
> 
> No, this is a real problem. I just made a very large patch that based
> around using the snd external. And because there is no way (as far as we
> know) to let an inlet (except the first one) accept both signals and
> messages, each time I needed another inlet, I had to manually move all
> connectors one step to the right, which made me not add as many inlets
> as I wanted to. (There are, however, a workaround, which is to let each
> even-numbered inlet be for messages, and each odd-numbered inlet be for
> signals. But thats just a hack.) Anyway, theres no rational argument why
> pd shouldn't be able to support both messages and signals on the same
> inlet, its probably just programming time that is the argument against.

hmmm, it is just like you have to know the type of data being sent to a
"right" inlet at beforehand, and this inlet will only accept this type.
thats how pd currently works (but i agree that it is not really helpful)

and that is what makes it so hard to code objects which accept anything
on their inlets.
otoh, it is possibly via proxy inlets and there might be a tiny chance
that something similar works with signals too.
btw, flext makes the use of these extended features a lot simpler.

however:
intuitivly, i would consider an object which lots of mixed inlets to be
badly designed anyhow: i think it is quite ok of pd that it enforces
some thought on how to create the objects API (which inlet/outlet does
what), instead of "just allowing anything".


> So this is a perfectly valid complaint about PD. (By the way, a bit

i haven't doubted that.

however, the original mailer said: "there is no way a signal inlet
could be used for message-input" that they know of and "i specifically
need the left-most inlet" to accept both signals and messages.
since the left-most inlet DOES accept both signals and messages i
consider this special complaint as void.


fmga.sdr.
IOhannes