[PD] "get" method for Pd

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at
Fri Nov 18 21:57:30 CET 2011

On Nov 18, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> 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.
> ok.
>> 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.

I don't really see a point in continuing this conversation when you consider whatever I write is all just whitewashing to further my secret agenda.  I really have no secret agenda, and I'm just trying to communicate.

>> 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.

Why on earth would I do that?


>>> 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.


All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated.... -John Donne 

More information about the Pd-list mailing list