----- Original Message -----
From: Cyrille Henry ch@chnry.net To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com; "pd-list@iem.at" pd-list@iem.at Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2012 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [PD] settable receive again
Le 08/06/2012 19:15, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
anyway, if you really in need for a settable send and a settable
receive, you
can always use prepends and route that are both settable. see small attached abstraction.
I think you are stuck for two reasons
- [r setable_send_receive] is global. I want the parent $0 in front of it
so that
my abstraction symbols don't clash with other abstractions.
i don't understand this point : just ignore the settable_send_receive stuff that is hidden inside ss and sr.
What if some other abstraction somewhere uses that symbol? The whole point of $0 is that you don't need to worry about this.
this 2 abstractions work exactly like a real settable send and receive, at least for the local / global send.
No, they don't. They have an additional feature/bug of filtering lists that have a symbol as the first element. "list foo bar" comes out "foo bar" at the other end.
Like I wrote, it's possible to hack around this problem. But that's much uglier than, say, sending a symbol to an inlet.
-Jonathan
i.e. if you want a local only send/receive, just use $0-bla, like you would have done with "real" send / receive.
that the route that filter content of different abstraction. the only problem is CPU overload, but that should really be minor.
- Your example filters messages in a way that s/r doesn't. It's
possible to hack
around this using three extra objects.
yes, right. but that is a minor problem. not a show stopper.
cheers c
It is also possible to get the arguments of an abstraction in Pd Vanilla. With the former, I'd rather send a
single message to
an inlet and be done.
-Jonathan
cheers c