[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[jfm3]

I agree. I think the inlet object should take several symbolic
arguments. Your abstraction should then get that many inlets, and the
little inlet object box should take on that many outlets. Data sent to
the first inlet will both come out of the first outlet of the inlet
object box, and be sent to the first name after "inlet", etc.. This
would be much more orthogonal to the way the ui elements work. The
position of an object should bear as little semantic load as possible.

Of course, inlet objects with *no* arguments should continue to work as
they do now. Otherwise pretty much every patch in existence would break.

On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 15:44, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> 
> Wish
> 
>  * [inlet] and [outlet] should have numeric argument.
> 
> Rationale
> 
> Currently, [inlet] and [outlet] objects seem to number themselves
> according to their positioning in the canvas (AFAIK). This is a bad thing
> because:
> 
>   1. Behaviour should not depend on graphical appearance, except when
>   otherwise not possible to do so. For example, if several connections
>   come out of an outlet, connections are treated in an unspecified order.
>   It is considered a bug to rely on that ordering. (Is it? I don't know
>   the puredata mindset enough for that)
> 
>   2. Each functionality must be accessible by at least one explicitly
>   specified behaviour. (i.e. unspecified behaviours do not count as a
>   valid way to use a feature)
> 
> Does that make sense to anyone?
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.kug.ac.at
> http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
-- 
(jfm3  2838 BCBA 93BA 3058 ED95  A42C 37DB 66D1 B43C 9FD0)