On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
The way I have been thinking is that the first inlet is the general inlet, and it can accept many types of messages. Then the second
inlet lines up with the first argument, the third inlet to the second argument, etc. I think this is pretty clean and flexible, and I
think it would be nice to have some kind of standard for this....
For example I can add a new "thing" to set remotely just by creating a [commun /thing $0] object inside an abstraction. Nothing more and no inlets are necessary to make this "/thing" read- and settable through the OSC-in/outlet.
I just counted (with the help of "wc") how many [commun]'s are used in rrad.pattseq.pd, the most complex RRADdical patch, and there are exactly 80. It would require 80 arguments and 80 inlets to provide the same functionality in a traditional way, that RRADical provides using one inlet and one argument.
Obviously this inlet/argument standard wouldn't work for that, and I am
not suggesting that it should be used everywhere. I am suggesting that
when you use inlet/argument pairs, they should follow that standard.
And I think inlet/argument pairs should be used whenever possible.
.hc
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!