[PD] inlet and inlet~

[Charles Henry]

It piqued my curiousity this morning...

whether you could use $1 arguments in the name of an object.  So, I
made a abstraction this morning called inle.pd and it works.

You can instatiate the abstraction as
[inle t]
or
[inle t~]

I don't think this approach is at all useful, though.

Chuck



On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Miller Puckette
<mpuckett at imusic1.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> No... I hope to figure out a good way to permit that.  Meanwhile, there's
>  also a bug in that inlet~ doesn't take numbers "correctly" (doesn't
>  promote them to signals)
>
>  cheers
>  Miller
>
>
>
>  On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 10:07:04AM -0400, Matt Barber wrote:
>  > Hello,
>  >
>  > Is there a way to make an abstraction that has one inlet that takes
>  > both signal and control messages (like osc~, e.g., or fiddle~ which
>  > gets audio and setting info, etc.)?  It's part of the API for objects;
>  > it seems to me there ought to be a way to do this with abstractions as
>  > well.  I'm envisioning an inlet object that splits signal and control
>  > into two outlets which can be parsed from there.  Something that uses
>  > the signal and control values to do the same thing (as in osc~) might
>  > be difficult to implement in an abstraction, but having signal and
>  > optional settings messages go to the same inlet would add to the
>  > abstraction-as-object nature of PD... does it exist?
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Matt
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > PD-list at iem.at mailing list
>  > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  PD-list at iem.at mailing list
>  UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>