>On 14/06/13 16:15, michael noble wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic<ico@vt.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>> While I agree with you that in most cases segmented patch cords are
>>> unnecessary, if you never have a need for them I presume you must be then
>>> using sends and receives for any situation where there is a feedback loop
>>> like:
>>>
>>> [object] x [object]
>>>
>>
>> Good point, I had a sneaking suspicion I was missing something. White space
>> helps here, but this is is the one case where I reluctantly tolerate some
>> obscuring the text.

>leaving the lines crossed this way also makes the construct instantly recognisable.

>I find that with the addition of an occasional [t a] object and a few
>send-return pairs when they give a clearer logical layout (plus putting
>appropriate logically related sections of the code in subpatches) makes a patch
>very readable, while tracing out segmented cords in big patches in other
>languages gets tiresome.

If segmented cords existed, morality would not suddenly go out the window.
You would still have subpatches and send/receive pairs to organize your patch.
Replacing your occassional [t a] object with a right angle cord isn't going to
make a patch harder to read.

>Its all really a matter of taste ... it has come up many many times over the
>years, and nobody who could implement them seems to want segmented cords enough
>to actually do the work.

Segmented lines with straight and Bezier segments were implemented by majtu in
Desire Data.

-Jonathan