[PD] "get" method for Pd

Mathieu Bouchard matju at artengine.ca
Fri Nov 18 21:50:07 CET 2011

Le 2011-11-18 à 14:20:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
> 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..

What's not a built-in atom type in there ? [textfile], [comport] and [hid] 
only use built-in atom types. If you mean messages that are not anythings, 
then you have to know that bangs and lists are not atoms, they're messages 
(but list elements are atoms, selectors are symbols, etc).

But I don't know why you consider this to be valuable, nor why you didn't 
talk about it in the last ten years or so, nor why nobody else ever did.

> 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.

You made up the previous principle so that you could promote a design that 
wouldn't otherwise have an advantage of its own.

>> 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.

That is not an answer to my question.

| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC

More information about the Pd-list mailing list