To be quite frank, I like the [spigot] more than MAX's [gate]. (I realize that they offer different core functionality, but if I had to choose one or the other - I'd choose [spigot].
It seems that [spigot] can be used easily to build gate-like structures...but using [gate] for spigot-like functionality is not as intuitive.
my 2 cents.
I do agree however with IOhannes, it would be nice to be able to 'initialize' spigot with either a "1" or "0". But at the same time Miller, I agree that until it works consistently that way, it would be better to eliminate all possibility of defining creation arguments.
Regards, Dave Sabine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Miller Puckette" mpuckett@man104-1.ucsd.edu To: "David Sabine" dave@davesabine.com Cc: pd-list@iem.kug.ac.at Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [PD] Spigot Creation agruments?
Hmm, maybe it would be best to avoid sending arguments to spigot in case I can figure out a good way to generalize it someday... for the moment,
I'm
thinking about offering a max-compatible "gate" such as already exists as an extern.
cheers Miller
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:40:14PM -0600, David Sabine wrote:
Hello,
[spigot] confuses me a little. It seems that the only creation argument
that it accepts is a "zero". However, "zero" is the default state for spigot even without the creation argument?
Would it make sense to re-write [spigot] to accept "0" or "1" as a
creation argument which could then effectively be used to define its default state?
Can somebody clarify this issue for me?
Many thanks, Dave Sabine