As Ivica mentioned, abstractions are preferable from an educational point of view. And they are easier to maintain... So I see no problem adding them just like [teeth~]. If performance gets an issue, it is always possible to code that object, or its critical part, in c.

The problem with teeth~ now is that it has no arguments. Ok, that's easy to fix, but there's a problem managing arguments with abstractions, and this is what I was trying to explain in response to Ivica's email.

For example, in [comb~], if you send a signal to an inlet, it overwrites the argument value, but if you disconnect that signal connection it will revert to the argument's value. That's how it works in Max too and I don't know any other way to achieve this other than with an external.

Please find attached an example with comb~ that illustrates this, when you disconnect the signal connection (value of 0) it'll restore the argument value (0.99).

Anyway, this is a common behaviour for such objetcs, so even if it's cool and easy to make an abstraction, ot's just best for the design if you code an external.

Another issue I could point with an abstraction in Pd for [teeth~] is that the delay objects are kinda buggy in Pd, where you can't really go up to the specified delay lenght. I've already reported this by the way. So, a more accurate delay network could be achieved with an external.

Moreover, it should be really easy to make a teeth~ external from the code in  comb~

cheers

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list