My original thought was to make it easier to debug patches, that controls should have a different appearance when they "send" or "receive" messages from elsewhere. If you see a number changing that's connected to an input on the screen, it's easy to assume that there are actually messages passing down the connection. Worse yet, you can copy and past a number into another part of a patch and then be confused when it changes unexpectedly because it's still got a hidden "receive". So all in all I prefer suppressing the inlet -- REALLY suppressing it, like "number" -- over providing it, and the same with the outlet if the box "sends".
I think it's a bad idea simply not to _draw_ the inlet and outlet, but to implement them anyway, as the IEMGUIs do. If there were some other way to distinguish the boxes graphically, that would be better, but I can't think what it would be.
cheers Miller
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:16:54PM +0900, hard off wrote:
but what's the purpose of the disappearing inlet/outlet?
maybe there's a good reason for it, but if you can still connect it seems to make more sense to have an inlet/outlet visible...and i know i'm not the only one who thinks that way.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list