How can you say that segmented patch cords are bad 95% of the time when they are not even available in Pd 100% of the time?

Just to take Miller's "Techniques" as an example, if there were segmented patch cords then all of his horizontal connections could be made unambiguous by having about 5px of vertical cord segment directly above the inlet.

Also, I've never seen you complain about any of the ASCII art on the this list, which often (surely more than 5% of the time) uses "-" and "|" at 90-degree angles and "+" to make segmented patch cords.

-Jonathan

From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at>;
To: Marco Donnarumma <devel@thesaddj.com>;
Cc: <pd-list@iem.at>;
Subject: Re: [PD] FLOSS book Lists chapter
Sent: Sat, Feb 19, 2011 6:48:10 PM


On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Marco Donnarumma wrote:

This made me think of a help to revealing (2). If an interface
were to have hover-over tooltips, as has been discussed at times
for outlets/inlets, then a cable could reveal its creation
order on hover.

It wouldn't obviate triggers, but would make a nice debugging
feature.




+1


I don't think the connection order should be exposed.  I really think that the GUI should not encourage bad programming practice.  Its also this same reason why I think that 95% of the time, segmented patch cords are bad.

But yes, tooltips showing what messages an inlet expects would be great to have.  Check out the l2ork distro for the new version of J.Sarlo's magic glass cord inspector.

.hc


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              http://at.or.at/hans/