I think I agree that changes in the direction of Max/MSP compatibility would be Good Things. I think that and a numbering scheme could be made to coexist, like: "inlet 5", "inlet frequency", "inlet float frequency 5", etc, so that you could specify any/all of the type, a name, and an ordering.
hmm...
cheers Miller
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 03:56:14PM +0200, pix wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2003 09:43:29 -0500 Michal Seta mis@creazone.32k.org wrote:
Re: order of messages Coming from Max, it has been a little confusing. But I do recall problems with that 'functionnality' in Max. [trigger] has been of great help both in Max and PD. While, in some situations, a specified order would be welcome, I would probably use [trigger] anyways, just to be sure.
i like the idea of leaving the order strictly unspecified, as this allows for the possibility of doing things in parallel at some distant point in the future. the first time i came across the max-like way of representing programs was as a description of how to write parallel programs.
I will allow myself to branch off to a different issue of inlet/outlet behaviour. What I really miss from Max is the inlet/outlet comment so that I don't have to open a subpatch/abstraction to know what inlet/outlet does what. IMHO this should be higher on a priority list re:inlets/outlets.
that would rock! :)
pix.
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list