[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> 
> Wish
> 
>  * [inlet] and [outlet] should have numeric argument.

Because...? It would break a lot of patches, I guess.

> Rationale
> 
> Currently, [inlet] and [outlet] objects seem to number themselves
> according to their positioning in the canvas (AFAIK). 

Yes. 

> This is a bad thing because:
> 
>   1. Behaviour should not depend on graphical appearance, except when
>   otherwise not possible to do so. 

The position is saved in the patch file and thus can be deduced
from reading the patch file (y-coordinate). In this regard it is not
purely graphical.

>   For example, if several connections come out of an outlet,
>   connections are treated in an unspecified order.

You're right, that this is a bit confusing. If several connections
come out of an object, they should be considered to occur at the same
time. For explicit ordering, the Max-languages use the [trigger]
object.

>   It is considered a bug to rely on that ordering. (Is it? I don't know
>   the puredata mindset enough for that)

Well, to rely on "unspecified order" isn't a bug, it's stupid. Pd
behaves the same as jMax or Max in this, I guess (I didn't use both
others very much, though). See [trigger] for how to specify order.

>   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)

See [trigger] again. Or maybe I missed the whole point?

ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__