[PD] settable receive again (was: ipoke~ ?)

[Roman Haefeli]

On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 08:56 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
> > To: pd-list at iem.at
> > Cc: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 4:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
> > 
> > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:53 +0200, Jeppi Jeppi wrote:
> >>  Hey,
> >>  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.

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand. Can you elaborate this?

>   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.

Sure, I wasn't advocating to substitute a settable receive by some
dynamic patching hack. I just happened not to be able to think of a case
that absolutely needs a settable receive (and am sorry for not yet
understanding the one you provided above). 

> 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?"

There never was a bug in [r ], afaik. I didn't know about the fact, that
adding an inlet to [r] would imply implementing a bug before it was
mentioned in this thread and I always thought, that for conceptual
reasons it was never implemented. And for some reason I haven't missed
it in all those years of Pd patching.


> Anyway, Ivica apparently has fixed the issue.

That's good.

Roman