----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:53 +0200, Jeppi Jeppi wrote:
Hey, I wonder whether there is something similar to Max' ipoke~ (an interpolating buffer~ writer) for Pd. I should need it for some physical modelling and resampling stuff. Otherwise, I could implement it myself. It seems only interpolated reading is available (tabread4~ and similar ones), not writing.
This somehow reminds of the thread about settable [receive].
Whether or not the user who started the settable [receive] thread really needed a settable receive, there are situations where it's needed, like wrapping s/r in abstractions so that I don't have to prepend a $0- which, in 95% of cases is what I want, and using a 2nd arg for setting scope for the other 5% of situations. There, not having a settable receive leads to hacky solutions like dynamic-patching or feeding a message-box with a semicolon, the receive-symbol, and the message (which also requires a hack to get "list foo" to remain "list foo" when it comes out). Both of those solutions are obscure and way more error-prone than simply sending a symbol to an inlet.
And the historical replies to a user wanting a settable receive of "why do you want to do that" are misleading, because the real question was "why do you want to do that when there's a long-standing bug-- even in all the iemguis-- that may cause a crash by doing that?"
Anyway, Ivica apparently has fixed the issue.
-Jonathan
Is there really a need for the ability to do interpolated writing? Conceptually, is there any restriction if it is lacking? Can't everything that employs interpolated writing be achieved with interpolated reading as well?
Maybe I'm not thinking hard enough...
Roman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list