It piqued my curiousity this morning...
whether you could use $1 arguments in the name of an object. So, I made a abstraction this morning called inle.pd and it works.
You can instatiate the abstraction as [inle t] or [inle t~]
I don't think this approach is at all useful, though.
Chuck
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Miller Puckette mpuckett@imusic1.ucsd.edu wrote:
No... I hope to figure out a good way to permit that. Meanwhile, there's also a bug in that inlet~ doesn't take numbers "correctly" (doesn't promote them to signals)
cheers Miller
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 10:07:04AM -0400, Matt Barber wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way to make an abstraction that has one inlet that takes both signal and control messages (like osc~, e.g., or fiddle~ which gets audio and setting info, etc.)? It's part of the API for objects; it seems to me there ought to be a way to do this with abstractions as well. I'm envisioning an inlet object that splits signal and control into two outlets which can be parsed from there. Something that uses the signal and control values to do the same thing (as in osc~) might be difficult to implement in an abstraction, but having signal and optional settings messages go to the same inlet would add to the abstraction-as-object nature of PD... does it exist?
Thanks,
Matt
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list