On 08/27/2013 12:56 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 08/27/13 18:20, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:

to share a small but hopefully sweet teaser screenshot with everyone :-)

while it does look pretty, i hope you are not going to start teaching
people to use fan-out rather than [trigger].

Fanout(1) = the order in which child chains are computed does not matter and doesn't need to be explicit
Trigger(1) = the order in which child chains are computed does matter and is explicit
Trigger(2) = the order in which child chains are computed doesn't matter but for aesthetic reasons is made explicit

Fanout(2) = the order in which child chains are computed does matter and is ambiguous.

When reading a patch, one may confuse Trigger(2) for Trigger(1), but that's no big deal because ordering
is explicit either way.

When reading a patch, one may confuse Fanout(2) for Fanout(1), and that could cause a run time error.

Therefore, the user should never use Fanout(2).

In the png the chain stops at the fanned out number boxes, so the ordering cannot matter.

Therefore, the png must be an example of Fanout(1).

As such, the png cannot be an example of teaching people to use fanout instead of trigger _unless_
you mean Trigger(2) should _always_ be preferred to Fanout(1).

If Trigger(2) is always preferred to Fanout(1), then there is no way to visually signify when ordering
doesn't matter.

Therefore, in cases where crossed wires or other ambiguities are not an issue, Fanout(1) is preferable
to Trigger(2).

Conclusion: teach Fanout(1) and Trigger(2) for situations where ordering doesn't matter, and Trigger(1) for
situations where it does.  The end.

-Jonathan


fgmasdr
IOhannes





_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list