i don't think it is a good idea to have order-numbers in inlets, would be more confusing like it is now, because there would be a bunch of new rules with that problem... what, if two inlets have the same number, what if one inlet has a number, and another has not? if i add a new inlet with id 1, would then all other inlets be updated and risen by one?...
but: i could imagine an argument telling about the number of inlets one inlet-object represents. so inlet 4 would create 4 inlets and i would not need to generate 4 seperate objects.
(and please no change to the order of messages from "in_the _order_created" to "left_to_right" in the patch. in my early patches i never used trigger... and i prefer this to max-style)
marius.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mathieu Bouchard" matju@sympatico.ca To: pd-list@iem.kug.ac.at Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 9:44 PM Subject: [PD] [inlet], [outlet].
Wish
- [inlet] and [outlet] should have numeric argument.
Rationale
Currently, [inlet] and [outlet] objects seem to number themselves according to their positioning in the canvas (AFAIK). This is a bad thing because:
- Behaviour should not depend on graphical appearance, except when
otherwise not possible to do so. For example, if several connections come out of an outlet, connections are treated in an unspecified order. It is considered a bug to rely on that ordering. (Is it? I don't know the puredata mindset enough for that)
- Each functionality must be accessible by at least one explicitly
specified behaviour. (i.e. unspecified behaviours do not count as a valid way to use a feature)
Does that make sense to anyone?
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list