On 4 Nov 2010, at 09:50, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-11-03 15:46, Jamie Bullock wrote:
Hi all,
This is more of philosophical question than anything else. I'm curious to know why [sig~] hasn't been designed out of Pd. Why not have implicit control -> signal conversion everywhere it is possible?
For example why not allow this?
|2( |3( | | [+~ ]
i don't think i understand your question.
Well retrospectively, the question doesn't make any sense at all because it's based on a test I did with a (subsequently discovered) broken bang~.
See bug https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3102828&group_id=55...
So I thought that implicit conversions weren't working, when in fact bang~ wasn't triggering my snapshot~.
Jamie
the above is totally legal on the versions of Pd i have installed on this machine.
otoh, [sig~] has been there for ages and longer. some old patches might still use it, because _then_ you had to explicitely convert to signals. should [sig~] be removed and break these patches?
and while i do use implicit float/signal conversion in my patches, i think explicit conversion is not that bad either: it may prevent people from hooking a slider into a [*~] and then complain why they get glitches.
fgmasdr IOhannes
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list