On Tue, 6 May 2003, David Sabine wrote:
I've come to like the way PD handles this problem. In my understanding of PD and MAX, yes it's a little confusing moving from one program to another - always reminding myself "MAX = right to left", "PD = order of connections".
I seem to have distracted everyone from the real issue that I was trying to bring into light... talk about communication skills... ;-)
but to confuse the issue even further with numbered inlets and outlets would be a grand pain in the butt.
The numbering of [inlet] and [outlet] objects is not "confusing the issue" and is not even the same issue, although it is a problem in the same general category.
However the big problem with the current [inlet] is that if you have several of them inside a patcher or abstraction, then you cannot position them in a way that the first inlet is to the right of the second inlet, because then both inlets swap roles, which leads to messages coming into and out of the wrong objects.
Should we then number all send and receives too?
pointless and irrelevant.
[trigger] [trigger] [trigger] = that's really the answer to this problem.
That's not the problem I wanted to talk about. [trigger] does not solve the [inlet] problem.
The right-to-left order in MAX is problematic because an operation that is carefully constructed can be rendered completely useless (or at the very least unstable) if objects are moved on the screen.
if objects are moved on the screen. Have you tried moving [inlet]'s on the screen ?
These tools should be more than enough to appease even the most discriminating users.
It's been more than a few times that I've mentioned the shortcomings of [t]... doesn't anyone listen ?
In regards to scheduling/numbering inlets and outlets...I vote no on the grounds that it is not necessary as PD already provides this functionality via [trigger].
You haven't even considered the issue.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju