[PD] settable receive again
ch at chnry.net
Sat Jun 9 18:55:46 CEST 2012
Le 09/06/2012 18:36, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Cyrille Henry<ch at chnry.net>
>> To: Jonathan Wilkes<jancsika at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Roman Haefeli<reduzent at gmail.com>; "pd-list at iem.at"<pd-list at iem.at>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2012 7:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PD] settable receive again
>> Le 08/06/2012 19:15, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
>>>> anyway, if you really in need for a settable send and a settable
>> receive, you
>>>> can always use prepends and route that are both settable.
>>>> see small attached abstraction.
>>> I think you are stuck for two reasons
>>> 1) [r setable_send_receive] is global. I want the parent $0 in front of it
>> so that
>>> my abstraction symbols don't clash with other abstractions.
>> i don't understand this point : just ignore the settable_send_receive stuff
>> that is hidden inside ss and sr.
> What if some other abstraction somewhere uses that symbol? The
> whole point of $0 is that you don't need to worry about this.
the risk can be reduce using this symbol instead :
if you still think it's dangerous, then think of someone using 1000-foo in it's patch.
$0-foo is not 100% safe either!!!
>> this 2 abstractions work exactly like a real settable send and receive, at least
>> for the local / global send.
> No, they don't. They have an additional feature/bug of filtering lists that have a
> symbol as the first element. "list foo bar" comes out "foo bar" at the other end.
yes, my sentence was an answer to your 1st point : local / global send. not an answer to your 2nd point.
this patchs was a prof of concept, not a final answer.
> Like I wrote, it's possible to hack around this problem. But that's much uglier
> than, say, sending a symbol to an inlet.
yes, i agree.
having a settable receive is one of the 1000 things that can be improve to make user life easier.
i just wanted to point that it's far from being a show stopper, since simple workaround can be find.
>> i.e. if you want a local only send/receive, just use $0-bla, like you would have
>> done with "real" send / receive.
>> that the route that filter content of different abstraction. the only problem is
>> CPU overload, but that should really be minor.
>>> 2) Your example filters messages in a way that s/r doesn't. It's
>> possible to hack
>>> around this using three extra objects.
>> yes, right. but that is a minor problem. not a show stopper.
>>> It is also possible to get the arguments of
>>> an abstraction in Pd Vanilla. With the former, I'd rather send a
>> single message to
>>> an inlet and be done.
More information about the Pd-list