[PD] [PD-announce] the end of type restrictions

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Miller Puckette wrote:

> But to return to the original question, if my 'improvement' of
> pack destroys the nice symmetry of pack and unpack arguments, this
> certainly calls the design of unlack into question, since the only
> reason its arguments are as they are is that they were designed so
> in the context of a no-longer-extant pack.

Is symmetry so important?

Why is it that leftmost inlet is special, not only in terms of 
implementation (the object _is_ its own left inlet except in case of 
NOINLET) but also that it is the 'active' inlet for most classes?
Because there's no special built-in outlet in those same objects...

Why are some classes using the reverse order? [timer], [realtime], 
[cputime]. For those objects, messages need to be sent left-to-right; the 
rightmost inlet triggers output.

What about [unselect] and [unroute] ?

Why can't [send~] and [receive~] be used just like [send] and [receive] 
and instead of making it many-to-many you added [catch~] and [throw~] that 
instead has exactly the opposite problem?

Where's [tabwrite4] ? ;)

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada