This sounds like a perfect comprimise! I can't think of any serious disadvantages to this.
.hc
On Nov 12, 2004, at 11:30 AM, Krzysztof Czaja wrote:
hi all,
Frank Barknecht wrote: ...
yes, there are these cases and those cases. However, the limitation of [prepend] is not annoying enough to break compatibility, IMO. ALso you
in case of prepend, I think, there is a compromise possible. An object would get the second inlet, but only when instantiated, max-incompatibly, without arguments. The 'set' method would still modify the argument, but only if a) creation arguments were provided, and b) the global max-compatibility flag was set. Otherwise, the 'set' method would call the 'anything' method.
I do not think, it is a good idea to have a [prepend this] in a patch, which actually prepends 'that' (after being set to 'that'). Such objects should read just [prepend].
I wonder, how many maxers use the 'set' feature of prepend? Or if they tend to use zl join, perhaps?
Interestingly, sending a single word 'set' to a prepend crashes Max on the next message to the object... I am talking about, 4.3.2, the last version I was determined enough to find money for...
Which is why my advocatus diaboli role is on halt...
Krzysztof
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
http://at.or.at/hans/