On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
Generally youonly have to add a description what every inlet does in your abstractions:
|inlet frequency|
I'm not sure, if it should be done this way in the long run. Wasn't there some discussion some time ago about the possibilities to have xlets numbered, like in jMax? Then we'd already have [inlet 1] as first arg. Whatever: If tooltips take the first arg's position, then that position is gone for possible other uses.
Thats true, but if numbers take the first position then it is gone too, as well as the resampling from IOhannes ... Personally I do not like the idea of numbering inlets, because its very confusing for me.
Maybe a kind of doc message for xlets would be an alternative. Like
[doc This inlet accepts the frequency( \ [inlet]
Okay, inlets don't have inlets yet, but it's just a thought.
Would be another possibility. But why not using a [pos X] message if someone really wants to change inlet position.
I think it is important that documenting the inlets is easy. No additional messages and connecting.
One alternative that comes to my mind is having a property dialog popping up everytime you create an inlet.
Then it is important that the documentation about the inlet can be seen inside the patch too (how, maybe as a tooltip at the inlet itself ?)
In general, when inlets are replaced by a graphical representation, the positioning of the arguments doesn't matter anymore, so not everything is lost ...
Guenter
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev