I agree. I think the inlet object should take several symbolic arguments. Your abstraction should then get that many inlets, and the little inlet object box should take on that many outlets. Data sent to the first inlet will both come out of the first outlet of the inlet object box, and be sent to the first name after "inlet", etc.. This would be much more orthogonal to the way the ui elements work. The position of an object should bear as little semantic load as possible.
Of course, inlet objects with *no* arguments should continue to work as they do now. Otherwise pretty much every patch in existence would break.
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 15:44, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
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