[PD] abstraction setting its own arguments
matju at artengine.ca
Sun Aug 8 20:30:37 CEST 2010
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> With [args] the blueberries appear in my cereal bowl without me having
> gone to the refridgerator to retrieve them.
I don't know why you wouldn't want the blueberries to appear in your
cereal bowl automatically. It's a really cool features.
> And if I want to pour [milk~] instead of [milk] the refridgerator quits
Ok, you mean if the left inlet is an [inlet~] ? Well, that's a limitation
of Pd. It doesn't allow abstraction inlets to be hybrid inlets. You can't
even emulate, imitate nor wrap [tabwrite~], for example, because it has a
hybrid inlet that you can't do with neither [inlet] nor [inlet~].
Why would you complain to me ? Complain to Miller instead.
> Well, I'd like to figure out the simplest way to write this particular
> definition so that someone unfamiliar with this e.e. cummings-like
> language has a chance of understanding it.
Write it the way you did, and if I ever find again something to say, I
will tell you.
I don't know what "e.e.cummings-like" may mean because I don't have that
>> But also, another big difference is that it does a job of
>> [unpack]ing, that the messagebox doesn't do. Therefore, in
>> that case, to follow an analogy with the messagebox, it's
>> ambiguous whether there ought to be a complementary implicit
>> [pack] behaviour in [args], causing it to have as many
>> inlets as it has outlets.
> If you did that then are all the inlets "hot"? Or would a "bang" to
> the left inlet both update and output the args?
I don't quite know.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
More information about the Pd-list