[PD] better tabread4~
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
More information about the Pd-list