[PD] "get" method for Pd

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Nov 18, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> Le 2011-11-18 à 10:16:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
> 
>> This is more like iemguts: properties of abstractions.  Jonathan's proposal includes that, but also global things.  IMHO, iemguts is the most Pd-ish because its a library of simple objects rather than a single absattr mega-object with attributes (Max/MSP style) or messages via send/receive.
> 
> Is the goal to make pd easier to use for complex problems, or is the goal to create lots of tiny classes for the sake of ideology ?

> I don't mind small classes and I do have problems with certain huge classes being huge (in Max) and bundling lots of things that they could outsource, but [absattr-sub] doesn't look like one.

Obviously, there are objects that are too simple just as there are objects that are too complex.  One thing that I think is a valuable goal is making objects that do their thing only using the core atom types as input: bang, float, symbol, list (rather than [get blah( etc.)  That's not always possible, like with [textfile], [comport], [hid], etc..

So we can take these concepts, like canvas properties and say: how can I do everything around canvas properties using only bang, float, symbol, list.  Its easy when its divided in the right way.  Take canvas visibility.  If this is its own [canvasvisible] object, then [bang( means get the value and [float 1( means set the value.  Then on the output we receive a float representing the visibility.

> Do you also think that [expr] should be avoided, for the sake of making simple objects ? [expr] is a complex thing with complex syntax.

I am fine with expr since I can also use [*] [+] [-] [/], etc.

.hc


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.          - Bill Moyers