Well if it breaks things, then that is a problem.
However, I think that sending a list to [t l l l], and replicating the list to each output would have very few applications. I would like to see a patch where someone is using this feature.
Anyway, that is not my use case.
My use case is
a) literals in [t] not working the same between [pack] with similar looking syntax (as illustrated), and
b) sending a list to [t f f f]. Distributing the list to each float seems rather useful, and changing the behavior as I suggested would be harmless, except in the odd case where someone has a patch, sending trigger a list, yet EXPECTS all values in the list to be dropped except the first element, which is distributed to each float.
The only ambigutity I can in accepting my change would be the case of using BOTH lists and floats (or literals) in a single [t]. I honestly cannot imagine a programmer doing this.
But then just model existing behavior.
Requested change:
If trigger's arguments contains *any* lists, then model existing behavior.
If trigger's arguments contains only floats (or string literals) and no lists, then
a) if the input is a single value, model existing behavior.
b) if the input is a list, then distribute to floats and literals similar to pack.
BH
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 4:27 PM IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 4/14/19 10:05 PM, William Huston wrote:
- 2: Allow [trigger] to accept a list. If there is one element, then
distribute to all "f" | "floats" as the present behavior. If there are multiple elements, then distribute similar to pack.
that doesn't make sense to me, as [trigger] already accepts lists fine: [t l l l]. however, this has totally different sematics than [pack]. it would break zillions of patches.
did i miss something?
gmdsr IOhannes
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list