if segmented patchcords are such a sin, why hasn't told the integrated circuit industry?
i'd agree ben's comment is a little off-the-cuff. the real answer is most certainly that it's simply more effort to impliment.
and i would suggest, to make your patches look nicer in the meantime, that you could try using send/receives if your patches look ugly with the present system. and i'd stress that this is more of a workaround than a design prescription.
pix.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard matju@sympatico.ca wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 ben@ekran.org wrote:
But I suppose the lesson is patches will never be hard to follow (either way) if they are well constructed! PD patches that are well constructed look good, segmented patch cords make bad patches look good...
You'd have a problem with my patches maybe? My work is essentially based on recursion, so in almost every patch I have a wire that goes on top on an object box, and doesn't have the possibility not to. That's not beautiful. (Oh yeah, I could use "send" and "receive", but it makes the diagram heavier.)
If you agree that having cords run over objects is ugly, could you tell me what I'm supposed to do to beautify patches that use recursion?
Also, I don't recall any other arguments against segmented patch cords than things along the lines of "if your patches didn't suck you wouldn't care for that feature". So I'm not sure what I am supposed to tell beginners about it without sounding bad. Are there any other arguments against?
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list