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

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hm, but mostly there is, at least "kind of": The hot left-most inlet
> corresponds to the right-to-left triggering of many objects.

Yeah, but I was mostly commenting on internal structure of pd. "sending to 
the left inlet" means the same as "sending to the object itself"; whereas 
there does not exist a "sending from the object itself" that is equivalent 
to sending through a certain outlet, although you can send messages 
without any outlet, just like what [s] and semicolon messageboxes do, but 
that's another thing.

> It's likely because of the nice symmetry in the following common idiom
> to get inter-onset intervals:
> [t b b]
> |     |
> [timer]
> [timer] (and its relatives to some extent) is an object that is used
> in a hot-to-cold fashion more often than in the cold-to-hot direction
> common with most other objects like [pack] etc.

What's the problem with just having crossing wires and consistent 
semantics? Crossing wires have to happen all of the time anyway.

I think that what you claim is a common idiom for [timer] is more than 
correct, as it would only output 0 if plugged the other way, but for 
[cputime] and [realtime]... I can very well imagine making plenty of them 
cross-wired, meaning what would've been straight-wired if those objects 
were more normal.

I think that this special inlet ordering does more harm than good.

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