[PD] dealing with arguments and inlets
Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans at eds.org
Sun Feb 5 20:59:07 CET 2006
On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
>> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> The way I have been thinking is that the first inlet is the general
>>> inlet, and it can accept many types of messages. Then the second
>>> inlet
>>> lines up with the first argument, the third inlet to the second
>>> argument, etc. I think this is pretty clean and flexible, and I
>>> think
>>> it would be nice to have some kind of standard for this.
> ...
>> For example I can add a new "thing" to set remotely just by creating a
>> [commun /thing $0] object inside an abstraction. Nothing more and no
>> inlets are necessary to make this "/thing" read- and settable through
>> the OSC-in/outlet.
>
> I just counted (with the help of "wc") how many [commun]'s are used in
> rrad.pattseq.pd, the most complex RRADdical patch, and there are
> exactly 80. It would require 80 arguments and 80 inlets to provide the
> same functionality in a traditional way, that RRADical provides using
> one inlet and one argument.
Obviously this inlet/argument standard wouldn't work for that, and I am
not suggesting that it should be used everywhere. I am suggesting that
when you use inlet/argument pairs, they should follow that standard.
And I think inlet/argument pairs should be used whenever possible.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________
____
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list