[PD] Fwd: right angle connections

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 14 17:59:42 CEST 2013

 >From: Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com>
>To: pd-list at iem.at 
>Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:37 AM
>Subject: Re: [PD] Fwd: right angle connections

>On 14/06/13 16:15, michael noble wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic<ico at vt.edu>  wrote:
>>> While I agree with you that in most cases segmented patch cords are
>>> unnecessary, if you never have a need for them I presume you must be then
>>> using sends and receives for any situation where there is a feedback loop
>>> like:
>>> [object] x [object]
>> Good point, I had a sneaking suspicion I was missing something. White space
>> helps here, but this is is the one case where I reluctantly tolerate some
>> obscuring the text.

>leaving the lines crossed this way also makes the construct instantly recognisable.

>I find that with the addition of an occasional [t a] object and a few 
>send-return pairs when they give a clearer logical layout (plus putting 
>appropriate logically related sections of the code in subpatches) makes a patch 
>very readable, while tracing out segmented cords in big patches in other 
>languages gets tiresome.

If segmented cords existed, morality would not suddenly go out the window.
You would still have subpatches and send/receive pairs to organize your patch.
Replacing your occassional [t a] object with a right angle cord isn't going to
make a patch harder to read.

>Its all really a matter of taste ... it has come up many many times over the 
>years, and nobody who could implement them seems to want segmented cords enough 
>to actually do the work.

Segmented lines with straight and Bezier segments were implemented by majtu in
Desire Data.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20130614/3d7f1c26/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list