Steffen wrote:
On 18/03/2007, at 11.37, Derek Holzer wrote:
I've had several students on both windows and OS X that had trouble
with the [>~] object for various reasons. It can be replaced with
[expr~ $v1 > $v2], which is what the [>~] abstraction uses.I saw that in the help patch for the abstraction. That help patches
says also that "you *cannot* use arguments with this version, like
[>~ 2.7]". Now i wonder if there is are Pd-technicalities that limits
to such behavior, since it's not implemented?
it is a problem with the use of [expr~] which allows either a signal on an inlet or a float. you have to decide which one to use at creation time. in zexy's [>~] abstraction, the decision has been made towards the former case.
i currently do not know of a solution for this problem... ..., since the arguments of [expr~] cannot be changed dynamically; ..., since there is no way to tell from within an abstraction whether there are arguments at all (my $@-patch fixes this); ..., since there is no way to change the abstraction's interface dynamically based on arguments (my [initbang]-patch fixes this);
since zexy relies only on vanilla-pd, it cannot solve this problem in it's abstraction set. for this very reason it still provides a binary version of [>~].
but of course you can/should implement both [>~] and [>~ 0] directly with [expr~], and then you have the freedom of choice.
mfga.sdr IOhannes