[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[pix]

On Wed, 07 May 2003 09:43:29 -0500
Michal Seta <mis at creazone.32k.org> wrote:

> 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 like the idea of leaving the order strictly unspecified, as this allows
for the possibility of doing things in parallel at some distant point in
the future. the first time i came across the max-like way of representing
programs was as a description of how to write parallel programs.
 
> 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.

that would rock! :)

pix.