[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[David Sabine]

Hello,

<snip>
>>> However the big problem with the current [inlet] is that if you have
several of them inside a patcher or abstraction, then you cannot position
them in a way that the first inlet is to the right of the second inlet,
because then both inlets swap roles, which leads to messages coming into
and out of the wrong objects.
>>> if objects are moved on the screen. Have you tried moving [inlet]'s on
the screen ?
</snip>

If inlets in a subpatch are moved, as you said, the patch cords move with
them.  They do not swap roles.  The merely change their location on the
screen.

?


<snip>
>>>> It's been more than a few times that I've mentioned the shortcomings of
[t]... doesn't anyone listen ?
</snip>

I haven't noticed those shortcomings that you've mentioned.

_________

I understand that the issue you have raised is basically this:
You want to plug something into an inlet on a sub-patch box.  Then within
the sub-patch, you want to route that message to ANY ONE of the [inlet]
objects in that patch (regardless of its position on screen).  You want to
do this using a numbered system.  In effect you want to re-route the
messages to control both the order in which the operations are carried out
in the sub-patch AND the virtual location of the objects on screen.  Cannot
the [send] and [receive] objects be used for this same general purpose?

Regards,
Dave S