Hello,
<snip> >>> However the big problem with the current [inlet] is that if you have several of them inside a patcher or abstraction, then you cannot position them in a way that the first inlet is to the right of the second inlet, because then both inlets swap roles, which leads to messages coming into and out of the wrong objects. >>> if objects are moved on the screen. Have you tried moving [inlet]'s on the screen ? </snip>
If inlets in a subpatch are moved, as you said, the patch cords move with them. They do not swap roles. The merely change their location on the screen.
?
<snip> >>>> It's been more than a few times that I've mentioned the shortcomings of [t]... doesn't anyone listen ? </snip>
I haven't noticed those shortcomings that you've mentioned.
I understand that the issue you have raised is basically this: You want to plug something into an inlet on a sub-patch box. Then within the sub-patch, you want to route that message to ANY ONE of the [inlet] objects in that patch (regardless of its position on screen). You want to do this using a numbered system. In effect you want to re-route the messages to control both the order in which the operations are carried out in the sub-patch AND the virtual location of the objects on screen. Cannot the [send] and [receive] objects be used for this same general purpose?
Regards, Dave S