Hello, I had another thread where I used my canvas "get" method to hide $0 in s/r pairs in an abstraction
and make it possible to more easily specify the scope of a variable using two abstractions named [to] and [from].
Now I'm extending that concept to nonlocal signal objects: s~/r~ and throw~/catch~. After looking
through the list I've realized that some of the confusion about these objects occurs because the
names are completely arbitrary and don't reflect the one-to-many/many-to-one division between them.*
(Side question: are there any many-to-many nonlocal signal externals? If so how does the cpu usage
compare to throw~/catch~?)
So here are the names for my abstraction wrappers:
send~/receive~ = copy~/paste~
Thus with [copy~ foo] you are taking the incoming signal and copying it to whatever is at the
receive-symbol $0-foo, which would be a [paste~ foo] object. The one-to-many connection is that
one can copy only one thing at a time (or on systems where you have multiple copy buffers they
each have a different key combination or icon on the interface, similar to the way we give a different
receive-symbol for each s~ in Pd), but you can paste it as many times as you wish.
throw~/catch~ = tobus~/frombus~
I think this one is self-explanatory. However, I'm not sure if "bus" really implies many-to-one (as
opposed to many-to-many). Maybe there is a better metaphor.
Would love to hear if anyone has suggestions on these names.
Thanks, Jonathan
- actually I think it's worse than that, because if you see that the control objects s/r are many-to-many,
you could reasonably assume that s~/r~ would be many-to-many as well.