hi Guenter,
thank you for a clarification... and sorry: it was probably me to cause all the confusion...
The best way of showing that I mean so, would be attempting to improve receive's handling of the 'set' message -- but I do not know how to do it right.
The main trouble is how to sense which 'set' is remote, and which has come via an inlet. It might be done by not binding a [receive] itself to a symbol, but binding a proxy object instead. However, it would involve a complete rewrite of the class, and this is something which should involve much better understanding of the 'core' than mine!
Hoping you are well now, and there is still some time left for your holidays,
Krzysztof
guenter geiger wrote:
Probably I made a mistake when merging the "set" messages, thats why nobody reported the bug against the external packages.
I got sick after that day and spend half of my holidays in bed, thats why I couldn't continue working/testing the changes I made.
About changing the core of pd behind Millers back:
This was definitely not my intention, I rather tried to setup a repository for those who like to send patches to Miller, in order to have the possibility to test them, select those that fit and throw away those who are useless.
Finally Miller will have the say what he accepts for pd and what not. I think it is very important to make development for pd as open as possible, same for GEM. I am just trying to propose a "procedure" how to contribute to pd, because I think that several contributions may get lost because there is not an official way to do so.