[PD] Bug Report/Feature Request: trigger should work like pack
williamahuston at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 02:06:49 CEST 2019
unpack does not guarantee sequence, as does trigger.
It's not really "my" use case. I saw the post on FB about why [t 10 66 -100
3000] doesn't work as expected. That seems like a reasonable expectation
based on how [pack 10 66 -100 3000] works, and a useful feature.
Also giving a list to [t f f f f] seems like it should work like [pack f f
I am just saying that such irregularities and special cases in a language
given similar syntax (as with English!) make it more difficult to learn,
use, and master.
Whereas a language like Perl, things just seem to work as you would expect
them to, based on similar patterns. You can often guess at the syntax and
things just work, as opposed to learning a bunch of special cases.
I think given present behavior, [t 35] should throw an error to the
But I would prefer the change requested.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 7:34 PM Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>
> Em dom, 14 de abr de 2019 às 19:14, William Huston <
> williamahuston at gmail.com> escreveu:
>> Well if it breaks things, then that is a problem.
>> However, I think that sending a list to
>> [t l l l], and replicating the list to each output would have very few
>> applications. I would like to see a patch where someone is using this
> I've done that lots of times
>> Anyway, that is not my use case.
>> My use case is
>> a) literals in [t] not working the same between [pack] with similar
>> looking syntax (as illustrated)
> not a good point as both objects are supposed to be quite different, and
> each object has its own design or "syntax"
>> b) sending a list to [t f f f]. Distributing the list to each float seems
>> rather useful
> this task is performed by [unpack f f f] already.
> I don't really understand your use case, can you give us more details?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list