[PD] settable receive again

[Cyrille Henry]

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 :
This_symbol_is_use_for_the_ss_and_sr_object_and_should_not_be_use_elsewhere

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.

cheers

Cyrille


>
> -Jonathan
>
>> 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.
>>
>> cheers
>> c
>>
>>>   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.
>>>
>>>   -Jonathan
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   cheers
>>>>   c
>>>>
>>>
>>
>