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