[PD] inlet names (bad?) practice?

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 2 20:22:15 CET 2021


> On Tuesday, March 2, 2021, 2:11:36 PM EST, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com> wrote: 
 > 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.
I have no plans to implement it that way, and the tooltip implementation we wrote in 
Pd-l2ork 1.0 draws directly from the help patches for its tooltip data.
However, if it turns out that a sizable number of users are abusing inlet(~)/outlet(~) args that way and they really want it displayed in the tooltip, I'll revisit it.
-Jonathan

> 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 :) 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20210302/4ca2f183/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list