[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[Miller Puckette]

I think I agree that changes in the direction of Max/MSP compatibility would
be Good Things.  I think that and a numbering scheme could be made to
coexist, like: "inlet 5", "inlet frequency", "inlet float frequency 5", etc,
so that you could specify any/all of the type, a name, and an ordering.

hmm...

cheers
Miller

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 03:56:14PM +0200, pix wrote:
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.kug.ac.at
> http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list