[PD] 0.37 must 'Cut' cables?

[pix]

if segmented patchcords are such a sin, why hasn't told the  integrated
circuit industry?

i'd agree ben's comment is a little off-the-cuff. the real answer is most
certainly that it's simply more effort to impliment.

and i would suggest, to make your patches look nicer in the meantime, that
you could try using send/receives if your patches look ugly with the
present system. and i'd stress that this is more of a workaround than a
design prescription.

pix.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:30:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Bouchard <matju at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 ben at ekran.org wrote:
> 
> > But I suppose the lesson is patches will never be hard to follow
> > (either way) if they are well constructed! PD patches that are well
> > constructed look good, segmented patch cords make bad patches look
> > good...
> 
> You'd have a problem with my patches maybe? My work is essentially based
> on recursion, so in almost every patch I have a wire that goes on top on
> an object box, and doesn't have the possibility not to. That's not
> beautiful. (Oh yeah, I could use "send" and "receive", but it makes the
> diagram heavier.)
> 
> If you agree that having cords run over objects is ugly, could you tell
> me what I'm supposed to do to beautify patches that use recursion?
> 
> Also, I don't recall any other arguments against segmented patch cords
> than things along the lines of "if your patches didn't suck you wouldn't
> care for that feature". So I'm not sure what I am supposed to tell
> beginners about it without sounding bad. Are there any other arguments
> against?
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list