Hallo, Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
The way I have been thinking is that the first inlet is the general
inlet, and it can accept many types of messages. Then the second inlet
lines up with the first argument, the third inlet to the second
argument, etc. I think this is pretty clean and flexible, and I think
it would be nice to have some kind of standard for this.
...
For example I can add a new "thing" to set remotely just by creating a [commun /thing $0] object inside an abstraction. Nothing more and no inlets are necessary to make this "/thing" read- and settable through the OSC-in/outlet.
I just counted (with the help of "wc") how many [commun]'s are used in rrad.pattseq.pd, the most complex RRADdical patch, and there are exactly 80. It would require 80 arguments and 80 inlets to provide the same functionality in a traditional way, that RRADical provides using one inlet and one argument.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__