On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 08:56 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:53 +0200, Jeppi Jeppi wrote:
Hey, I wonder whether there is something similar to Max' ipoke~ (an interpolating buffer~ writer) for Pd. I should need it for some physical modelling and resampling stuff. Otherwise, I could implement it myself. It seems only interpolated reading is available (tabread4~ and similar ones), not writing.
This somehow reminds of the thread about settable [receive].
Whether or not the user who started the settable [receive] thread really needed a settable receive, there are situations where it's needed, like wrapping s/r in abstractions so that I don't have to prepend a $0- which, in 95% of cases is what I want, and using a 2nd arg for setting scope for the other 5% of situations.
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand. Can you elaborate this?
There, not having a settable receive leads to hacky solutions like dynamic-patching or feeding a message-box with a semicolon, the receive-symbol, and the message (which also requires a hack to get "list foo" to remain "list foo" when it comes out). Both of those solutions are obscure and way more error-prone than simply sending a symbol to an inlet.
Sure, I wasn't advocating to substitute a settable receive by some dynamic patching hack. I just happened not to be able to think of a case that absolutely needs a settable receive (and am sorry for not yet understanding the one you provided above).
And the historical replies to a user wanting a settable receive of "why do you want to do that" are misleading, because the real question was "why do you want to do that when there's a long-standing bug-- even in all the iemguis-- that may cause a crash by doing that?"
There never was a bug in [r ], afaik. I didn't know about the fact, that adding an inlet to [r] would imply implementing a bug before it was mentioned in this thread and I always thought, that for conceptual reasons it was never implemented. And for some reason I haven't missed it in all those years of Pd patching.
Anyway, Ivica apparently has fixed the issue.
That's good.
Roman