On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Ah, I guess I am stuck on good ol' bourne shell ;). But isn't that bash stuff just a hack to get math into bourne shell syntax? I don't think its the kind of thing we want to emulate.
It depends on whether you prefer just-a-hack in the language itself or just-a-hack in every patch that can't use the language hack.
Doing message-based math in Pd can be pretty tortuous sometimes, and few people are really trained into converting math formulas into small Pd objects like [+] [*] [swap] [pack] [unpack].
For the rest of us (mere mortals) there is [expr].
In PureUnity I can't use [expr] in situations where the point is to test [+] [*] etc, so I do all the tortuous stuff.
I think that its much cleaner to make the objects receive messages on inlets than get into the whacky bash syntax.
Yeah, I wouldn't especially pick bash's syntax in this case but I don't know what else it could be. My current favourite is the one like $a1[1] that I described in another email today. That syntax doesn't do any arithmetic but it introduces multi-inlet messageboxes. (for the arithmetic, [expr] is good enough for me)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada