On Wed, 7 May 2003 11:16:53 +0200 pix wrote:
the more i think about it, the more i become a fan of the existing way of doing things ;)
Actually, I think I can relate to that...
Re: intlets/outlets I think it makes a lot of sense, for a visual programming environment, if the (visual) order of inlets & outlets in the subpatch/abstraction is reflected on the parent. I haven't used jMax but Max works in the same way. Not that I care much for Max these days but if there is some work being done by some of the developers to make PD read Max patches (and vice versa?) then a different behaviour would create more, unnecessary, confusion. Not to mention the compatibility with older PD patches.
Re: order of messages Coming from Max, it has been a little confusing. But I do recall problems with that 'functionnality' in Max. [trigger] has been of great help both in Max and PD. While, in some situations, a specified order would be welcome, I would probably use [trigger] anyways, just to be sure.
I will allow myself to branch off to a different issue of inlet/outlet behaviour. What I really miss from Max is the inlet/outlet comment so that I don't have to open a subpatch/abstraction to know what inlet/outlet does what. IMHO this should be higher on a priority list re:inlets/outlets.
cheers
./MiS