[PD] Fwd: right angle connections
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
>>> [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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list