On May 31, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Josh Steiner wrote:
Martin Peach wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
which one is the best, counting the leftmost inlet as #0, or
counting it as #1 ? I ask because I have quite a bit of doc and code in which
inlets are numbered, so before there's too much of it, i'd like to settle
this issue.so i'm looking to know what would be the advantages of doing it one
way or another, and also, who standardized on calling it #0, and who instead chose #1.By analogy with the 'main' function in c, where argv[0] points to the
full pathname of the program, it would be interesting in pd if inlet
0 were to be reserved for a unique pathname to the object (such as a
'globally unique identifier' or the pointer to the object's own
struct), allowing it to be targeted by other objects just like a
[send]/[receive] pair. Then the visible inlets would be numbered from
Outlet 0 would emit the value of inlet 0.
interesting idea. plus elseware in pd you start counting from 1,
namely [$1] is the first argument to an abstraction, not [$0]
Plus $0 is a unique identifier, so that also fits Martin's idea. Its
sounds like a good one to me.
.hc
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it."
- Thomas Jefferson