Hi all,
I really think having a "forward" object would be the way to do it compatibly with Max/MSP, so it's probably better not to add a "set" or other message to the send object.
cheers Miller
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 04:55:55PM +0200, Peter Lundén wrote:
I think its a nice idea to have the functionality but there is problems with the naming. I vote for a change of the name of the "set address" message in [send].
--PLu
guenter geiger wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Krzysztof Czaja hat gesagt: // Krzysztof Czaja wrote:
In most cases the need for retargetting is the consequence of a bad design.
I guess, I never encountered a need for send-setting, that wasn't solvable with [; $1 $2( in my patches.
If I have intruduced this in the CVS version (the send set), I am willing to throw it out again and put the settable send/receive stuff into the externals again.
Votes ?
Guenter
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list