while we're at it, any reason why not to have a "set" method for [send~] and [catch~]? Seems inconsistentFor the same reason why you can't set the name of [delwrite~]: it's the object owning the buffer. In theory, it would be possible to bind the object to another name, but why would you want to do that? Also, you would have to notify *all* existing [delread~] objects, so they have a chance to update the delay line (if needed).
Generally, resources have a fixed name and you only dynamically
set the name in accessor objects. For example, you would set the
array in [array set] and [array get], but you wouldn't change the
name of the [array define] *).
Christof
*) Actuallly, it's possible with the "rename" method, but it's
*very* confusing.
Em seg., 1 de mar. de 2021 às 20:40, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com> escreveu:
I can also try a PR
I give up already, waiting for you :)
Em seg., 1 de mar. de 2021 às 21:02, Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com> escreveu:
Pd objects are (unfortunately) not notified on connection changes and I can't think of a sane way to work around this. The real solution would be to add an API for object state change notifications. In the meantime, I would say: forget about it.
forgotten, but: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/1275
while we're at it, any reason why not to have a "set" method for [send~] and [catch~]? Seems inconsistent