[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[pix]

On Tue, 6 May 2003 20:57:09 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Bouchard <matju at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> 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.
 
...and you don't think readability would suffer if this was possible?
after all, the visual order of the [inlet] objects inside the patch
corresponds to the ordering of the connection points of the object when it
appears in another patch.

if it were possible to have out-of-order inlets, then for readability they
should probably be reserved for special cases where it doesn't make sense
to the the processing in the area of the patch where the inlet object will
lie. in which case, you could achieve the same thing easily by just
draping a long patch cable across your patch, or using a send/receive
pair, to get the data to where the processing will happen.

> > [trigger] [trigger] [trigger] = that's really the answer to this
> > problem.
> 
> That's not the problem I wanted to talk about. [trigger] does not solve
> the [inlet] problem.

i kind of apologise for paying too much attention to your
order-of-execution example, it seems to have spawned an alternate thread
under the same subject heading. much conflation has ensued.
 
> It's been more than a few times that I've mentioned the shortcomings of
> [t]... doesn't anyone listen ?

yes they listen, krystof said that the fact that [t a] munges bangs is a
bug. if you know of any other situations where the input of [t a] differs
from it's output, it is also a bug.
 
pix.