[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[marius schebella]

i don't think it is a good idea to have order-numbers in inlets, would be
more confusing like it is now, because there would be a bunch of new rules
with that problem... what, if two inlets have the same number, what if one
inlet has a number, and another has not? if i add a new inlet with id 1,
would then all other inlets be updated and risen by one?...

but: i could imagine an argument telling about the number of inlets one
inlet-object represents. so inlet 4 would create 4 inlets and i would not
need to generate 4 seperate objects.

(and please no change to the order of messages from "in_the _order_created"
to "left_to_right" in the patch. in my early patches i never used trigger...
and i prefer this to max-style)

marius.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mathieu Bouchard" <matju at sympatico.ca>
To: <pd-list at iem.kug.ac.at>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: [PD] [inlet], [outlet].


>
> 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