[PD] Purpose of sig~
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Nov 4 10:50:05 CET 2010
On 2010-11-03 15:46, Jamie Bullock 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(
> | |
> [+~ ]
>
i don't think i understand your question.
the above is totally legal on the versions of Pd i have installed on
this machine.
otoh, [sig~] has been there for ages and longer.
some old patches might still use it, because _then_ you had to
explicitely convert to signals. should [sig~] be removed and break these
patches?
and while i do use implicit float/signal conversion in my patches, i
think explicit conversion is not that bad either: it may prevent people
from hooking a slider into a [*~] and then complain why they get glitches.
fgmasdr
IOhannes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20101104/459f59e0/attachment.bin>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list