Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:35 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
If you use the route-approach, you can use settable routes (as an abstraction like sroute.pd in [list]-abs). But actually I have no idea why a settable receive should be necessary anyway? :)
Why not have settable receives? I dont' see the downside or harm. In this case, a settable receive is only possible via arguments and dollarargs in the receive object box. I guess that's an old issue...
I didn't mean to start a discussion on the general usefulness of settable receives (about which I have an opinion), I only meant your usecase, which as I understand is that you want to share a global or remote value like a video's FPS in many abstractions. For this I don't think you need a settable receive, as you can reserve a single, unchanging reveiver to receive such information, either a multi-use single-name receiver that distributes items with [route] or many separate receivers (with the namespace pollution problem).
Perhaps another approach would be to have a standard receive name for a library, then make it local using routes. So something like [receive framesync/framesync] then the next route would be the project ID, then the standard bits of data (i.e. fps).
Yep.
Ciao