[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

Michal Seta mis at creazone.32k.org
Wed May 7 16:43:29 CEST 2003


On Wed, 7 May 2003 11:16:53 +0200
pix wrote:

> the more i think about it, the more i become a fan of the existing way of
> doing things ;)

Actually, I think I can relate to that...

Re: intlets/outlets
I think it makes a lot of sense, for a visual programming environment, if the (visual) order of inlets & outlets in the subpatch/abstraction is reflected on the parent.  I haven't used jMax but Max works in the same way.  Not that I care much for Max these days but if there is some work being done by some of the developers to make PD read Max patches (and vice versa?) then a different behaviour would create more, unnecessary, confusion.  Not to mention the compatibility with older PD patches.

Re: order of messages
Coming from Max, it has been a little confusing.  But I do recall problems with that 'functionnality' in Max.  [trigger] has been of great help both in Max and PD.  While, in some situations, a specified order would be welcome, I would probably use [trigger] anyways, just to be sure.

I will allow myself to branch off to a different issue of inlet/outlet behaviour.
What I really miss from Max is the inlet/outlet comment so that I don't have to open a subpatch/abstraction to know what inlet/outlet does what.  IMHO this should be higher on a priority list re:inlets/outlets.

cheers

./MiS




More information about the Pd-list mailing list