[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...
Name: inlet~msg.diff
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20080618/dffd1160/attachment.asc>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list