Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Well, yes, you're right. However as they are functionally equivalent and as personally I tend to use [t b] a lot more(*) than [bang] (which I practically never use), I'm curious how big the overhead would be.
(*) Because I find myself to often extend a [t b] to become a [t b b b ...] anyway later so I often just start with [t b] instead of [bang]
i don't have an answer to your question (how big the overhead might be), however i have a (meaningless) remark regarding the use of [t b] instead of [bang]:
adding " b b b" to [t b] is not less work than to change [bang] to [t b b b b]; the patch's functionality will not be touched.
otoh, i myself often use [t b] instead of [bang], as it saves an entire keystroke. which makes me think that a shortcut [b] for [bang] would save even more keystrokes and - ...checking... - indeed, there is an object [b] which is an alias for [bang]. (and changing [b] to [t b b] is probably simpler and more efficient in terms of typing than changing [t b] to the same)
mf.adsr IOhannes
Ciao