[PD] settable receive again (was: ipoke~ ?)
reduzent at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 10:48:41 CEST 2012
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.
More information about the Pd-list