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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

----- Original Message -----

> From: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
> To: 
> Cc: "pd-list at iem.at" <pd-list at iem.at>
> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 4:48 AM
> Subject: [PD] settable receive again (was:  ipoke~ ?)
> 
> 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?

I've posted about it before.  Just imagine [s] inside abstraction [foo] and 
[r] inside abstraction [bar].  I want to type [foo blah] and have my abstraction 
set the inner [s] symbol to [parent-$0]-blah.  Easy enough. Similarly, I want 
[bar blah] to set its inner [r] symbol to [parent-$0]-blah.  Roadblock.

The scope stuff is more involved than that, but that's enough of an example to 
demonstrate a use case for a dynamically settable [receive].

> 
>>    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.

There's a bug in [iem_r] and all the other alternatives to [r] that tried to 
add that functionality, plus the iemguis which are internal objects.

> 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.

What are the conceptual reasons?

-Jonathan

> 
> 
>>  Anyway, Ivica apparently has fixed the issue.
> 
> That's good.
> 
> Roman
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>