[PD] better tabread4~

Brandon Zeeb bsoisoi at mac.com
Wed Jun 25 02:37:46 CEST 2008

Excellent point, don't listen to me!  :)

 From your example, I'm assuming you're hinting at including the  
ability in this abstraction to switch interpolation schemes by  
enabling/disabling  sub-patched tabread~, tabread4~, and tabread4c~  
objects via inlet messages or creation arguments.

In the end, I would probably only use a tabread4c~ type object in  
special circumstances given tabread4~ is good enough.  So whatever you  
decide to do I'm sure it's going to be legit (as Pd rocks).


On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:06 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> hmm, i am not totally convinced (but actually don't care) as this  
> leads to bloated objects which can just do everything and you  
> specify what they should do via parameters. why do we have objects  
> then?

More information about the Pd-list mailing list