[PD] ipoke~ ?
jancsika at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 6 17:56:47 CEST 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
> To: pd-list at iem.at
> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 4:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:53 +0200, Jeppi Jeppi wrote:
>> I wonder whether there is something similar to Max' ipoke~ (an
>> interpolating buffer~ writer) for Pd. I should need it for some
>> physical modelling and resampling stuff. Otherwise, I could implement
>> it myself. It seems only interpolated reading is available (tabread4~
>> and similar ones), not writing.
> This somehow reminds of the thread about settable [receive].
Whether or not the user who started the settable [receive] thread really
needed a settable receive, there are situations where it's needed, like
wrapping s/r in abstractions so that I don't have to prepend a $0- which,
in 95% of cases is what I want, and using a 2nd arg for setting scope for
the other 5% of situations. There, not having a
settable receive leads to hacky solutions like dynamic-patching or
feeding a message-box with a semicolon, the receive-symbol, and
the message (which also requires a hack to get "list foo" to remain
"list foo" when it comes out). Both of those solutions are obscure and
way more error-prone than simply sending a symbol to an inlet.
And the historical replies to a user wanting a settable receive of "why do
you want to do that" are misleading, because the real question was
"why do you want to do that when there's a long-standing bug-- even in
all the iemguis-- that may cause a crash by doing that?"
Anyway, Ivica apparently has fixed the issue.
> Is there
> really a need for the ability to do interpolated writing? Conceptually,
> is there any restriction if it is lacking? Can't everything that employs
> interpolated writing be achieved with interpolated reading as well?
> Maybe I'm not thinking hard enough...
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
More information about the Pd-list