[PD] inlet and inlet~
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Jun 18 17:39:19 CEST 2008
Matt Barber wrote:
> In other words, at the moment it seems to be just as hard to add the
> extra functionality to [inlet~] as it would be to make any ordinary
> objectclass whose right inlet could take a signal and a bang message.
actually it is rather trivial, see attached diff.
this however is a quick hack and i don't think it should really be used.
probably a better approach would be to accept any messages in [inlet~]
and just pass them on to the objects connected.
then you could have another object that separates signals and messages.
i would call the latter [route~]ld be made for the vinlet class.
> BTW, to complicate things, if one wanted abstractions to REALLY work
> like objects, then if the abstraction's leftmost inlet were an
> [inlet~], it would automatically sprout the right outlet for passing
> messages (and this only if it were an abstraction -- you probably
> wouldn't want this for subpatches)...
i don't fully understand what you mean here.
however, it seems to me that you are trying to mimick flaws in the
external-API in the abstraction-API.
it would probably be better to fix the flaws than to mimick them.
(and one could hack together an external that takes messages+signals on
any inlet; and signals only on a right-hand inlet,...)
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list