[PD] Purpose of sig~
Andy Farnell
padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk
Wed Nov 3 17:14:04 CET 2010
There are some uses of [sig~] which are not immediately
obvious but turn out to be desirable. By definition it
is useful any place you want a message domain value converted
to a signal, without any further ado. Without it, relying
only on implicit conversion you might never have access to
a signal except by a degenerate idiom like
[$1(
|
[line~]
Crucially, [sig~] can be given a creation parameter, as in
[sig~ 1], and will not need any messy initialisation
like using a [loadbang] in order to obtain a signal
constant immediately.
Why might you want a signal constant? Perhaps for
a relation like (1 - x), useful in panning, crossfading,
or (1 / x) common in waveshaping.
Matju raises a question over DSP on/off. I have encountered
problems relying on implicit right inlet conversion
with deep abstractions, so from practical experience
it seems safer to use [sig~] in these circumsatnces.
It also make code more readable to make important
message/signal distinctions explicit.
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 14:46:51 +0000
Jamie Bullock <jamie at postlude.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is more of philosophical question than anything else. I'm curious to know why [sig~] hasn't been designed out of Pd. Why not have implicit control -> signal conversion everywhere it is possible?
>
> For example why not allow this?
>
> |2( |3(
> | |
> [+~ ]
>
> Jamie
>
> --
> http://www.jamiebullock.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--
Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list