[PD] [inlet], [outlet].

[Miller Puckette]

Hi all,

I always intended for "float 99" and "list 99" to be exactly
equivalent in Pd.  I think this has caused problems in trying to
make certain objects compatible with Max, in which they may be
treated distinctly (but never really _should_, I don't think, since
it's too comfusing.  Also, "list" with no argument is the same as
"bang"...

cheers
Miller

 
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:23:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Czaja wrote:
> hi again,
> 
> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> ...
> > so [t a] wraps the float in a one-element list, which makes a difference
> 
> true (as always).  Same for rejection outlet of [route], btw.
> 
> I think there is a convention of 'float 99' and 'list 99' being
> the same thing (also 'symbol dog' and 'list dog', likewise 'bang'
> and empty 'list').
> 
> If an object expects only a float, or only a list, it simply cannot
> tell, whether it has been sent 'float 99' or 'list 99'.  But if an
> object has both methods declared (or only the 'anything' method),
> it can, so it is only by a convention, that there should not be any
> differentiation of behaviour.
> 
> Well, the typing rules in Pd are a bit tricky indeed, perhaps
> they are explained in some place (IOhannes' docs?), I do not
> know...
> 
> ...
> > but also to improve compatibility with jMax. One of my .jmax files doesn't
> > convert to .pd _because_ of this. I guess I'm stuck with adding code to
> > the converter to reorder the positions of [inlet] objects anyway. This may
> > screw the layout but it's not like the layout of converted patches is not
> > already quite screwed.
> 
> very much true -- same about importing poly~ized msp abstractions.
> 
> Krzysztof
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.kug.ac.at
> http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list