[PD] inlet names (bad?) practice?

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

The idea doesn't sound bad, it'd be a nice GUI feature. As for the design,
I think you'd need a special flag to set the name and not just some symbol,
this way you'd not get into conflicts with the actual arguments.

Well, anyway, someone started abusing the fact that the object doesn't
complain about invalid arguments and now I can only see this as a bad
practice indeed. I like to joke that Pd will not complain if you create
[osc~ 440 hz (cycles per second)], but that doesn't mean you should do it
:)

Em ter., 2 de mar. de 2021 às 14:46, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>
escreveu:

> > On Tuesday, March 2, 2021, 11:10:36 AM EST, Alexandre Torres Porres <
> porres at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I was asking people on facebook where did they get the idea of
> putting names in inlets/outlets, like: [inlet
> this-inlet-controls-frequency].
>
> Not sure. But A_DEFSYM and A_DEFFLOAT are implemented in a way that allows
> an arbitrary number of extra float/symbol arguments, so it could be `[inlet
> this inlet controls frequency]`. Or following the `[get]` and `[set]`
> pattern-- `[inlet - this inlet controls frequency]` to skip over the first
> arg that is currently used for up/downsampling.
>
> Someone asked on the Purr Data list about this. It would be easy to
> implement, but it doesn't cover the case of setting a description for the
> object itself. Plus I'd much rather just leverage the documentation index
> in the GUI to look up tooltip data.
>
> -Jonathan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20210302/35bbfaa7/attachment.htm>