[PD] dealing with arguments and inlets
Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans at eds.org
Sun Feb 5 18:21:11 CET 2006
On Feb 4, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> I think we can keep both [any_argument] and [list_argument] so that
>> you can
>> choose the behavior. Also its very easily and logically
>> straightforward to do
>> this if you want:
>>
>> [any_argument]
>> |
>> [route float]
>> [symbol]
>>
>> And this will work even with very old versions of Pd and would be
>> compatible
>> with [list_argument].
>
> This wouldn't work with pointers. This also wouldn't work if Pd's set
> of
> basic atomtypes (float symbol pointer) gets extended to more types in
> the
> future.
>
>> In my opinion, new is not always better. The double [route] thing
>> works
>> fine, and it is a clearly established method. [list] is still quite
>> new, so for things like [*_arguments], I think its wise to stick to
>> tried-and-true methods whenever possible.
>
> tried-and-true is ok if the new [list] thingy doesn't fill a gap in Pd.
> But it does fill a big gap, such that anything designed for >=0.39
> which
> avoids using [list] is just being retro. It's not like [list] is some
> kind
> of luxury, isn't it?
Ok, I'm convinced on that point, [list_argument] should use list. I
support backwards compatibility only if it doesn't affect forward
compatibility. My concern is that since [list] is new an untested, and
something of a hack (i.e. alist_class) that is might have to change
behavior at some point in the future. It doesn't feel stable to me
yet.
But I still think that [any_argument] that outputs a non-symbol is
useful too. How about this: [list_argument] becomes [any_argument],
since its symbol output matches [symbol_argument], then the non-list
[any_argument] is [route_argument] or something like that.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________
____
There is no way to peace, peace is the way.
-A.J. Muste
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list