[PD] is there a [round]?

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> Well, yes, you're right. However as they are functionally equivalent
> and as personally I tend to use [t b] a lot more(*) than [bang]
> (which I practically never use), I'm curious how big the overhead
> would be. 
> 
> (*) Because I find myself to often extend a [t b] to become a [t b b b
> ...] anyway later so I often just start with [t b] instead of [bang]

i don't have an answer to your question (how big the overhead might be), 
however i have a (meaningless) remark regarding the use of [t b] instead 
of [bang]:

adding " b b b" to [t b] is not less work than to change [bang] to [t b 
b b b]; the patch's functionality will not be touched.

otoh, i myself often use [t b] instead of [bang], as it saves an entire 
keystroke. which makes me think that a shortcut [b] for [bang] would 
save even more keystrokes and - ...checking... - indeed, there is an 
object [b] which is an alias for [bang]. (and changing [b] to [t b b] is 
probably simpler and more efficient in terms of typing than changing [t 
b] to the same)

mf.adsr
IOhannes


> 
> Ciao