[PD-dev] bang [block~] to query current blocksize

[Roman Haefeli]

On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 21:40 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, for DSP state, that's global, so using a global receive symbol  
> > makes sense, IMHO.  
> 
> The problem is not, that the state is global, but that with the
> send/receive approach there would only be a global way to access the
> state, but no locally restricted way. 
> 
> Take for example [samplerate~]: The (global) samplerate also is a
> global property, but with [samplerate~] I can access this information
> locally, i.e. it will only be sent to the outlet of the [samplerate~]
> object that gets a bang. Imagine if instead of [samplerate~] there was
> only a global [s pd-samplerate] and [r pd-samplerate] pair available.
> Everytime, you'd want to get the samplerate, you would also activate
> all other places where you have a [r pd-samplerate]!
> 
> Chuck's workaround of [spigot]ting all receivers of course is even
> more of a kludge and may in fact be proof of a lack of needed
> functionality.

why not using an abstraction for global states in order to access them
locally?

[inlet] [receive pd]
|      /
[b ] [route dsp]
|   /
[f ]
|
[outlet] 

or am i missing the point here? (sorry, if so. i didn't read the full
thread)

personally, i don't see the main problem in the state being global,
since turning global values in only locally accessible values is simple.
the major problem i have with the [r pd] approach is, that there is no
way to know the state without having changed the state at least once,
which is paradox, since if you deliberately change something, you don't
need to request it's current state anymore.

roman



	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de