Hi folks,
This is ultra-simple, but I find it so useful that I thought I'd make it available. Basically it's an abstraction that provides functionality equivalent to Max's [!/], [!-] etc. With these objects the inlets are in the opposite order to the operands. The pd abstraction is essentially syntactic sugar, so instead of doing:
|0.4( | [t b a] | / |1( / | / [- ]
You can just do:
|0.4( | [! - 1]
Probably someone has already done this and made it available, but here it is anyhow:
http://puredata.info/Members/jb/exclamation-mark/view
Jamie
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 17:17 +0000, Jamie Bullock wrote:
The pd abstraction is essentially syntactic sugar, so instead of doing:
|0.4( | [t b a] | / |1( / | / [- ]
You can just do:
|0.4( | [! - 1]
As someone just pointed out to me, this is also syntactic sugar for the leaner:
[0.4( | [swap 1] \ / [- ]
Jamie
You also have : |1 0.4( | [- ]
++
Jack
Le 13 janv. 08 à 19:55, Jamie Bullock a écrit :
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 17:17 +0000, Jamie Bullock wrote:
The pd abstraction is essentially syntactic sugar, so instead of doing:
|0.4( | [t b a] | / |1( / | / [- ]
You can just do:
|0.4( | [! - 1]
As someone just pointed out to me, this is also syntactic sugar for
the leaner:[0.4( | [swap 1] \ / [- ]
Jamie
-- www.postlude.co.uk
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
Funny, I was just saying to Jamie about the "more than one way to do it" and how old working habits die hard. I've started to use list input distrubution much more recently, but still find I do things the old way by force of habit.
Maybe, as a personal choice, I find explicit operations are a bit easier to read. I often sum signals with [+~] just because it looks nicer and the flow stands out more.
a.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:24:10 +0100 Jack jack@rybn.org wrote:
You also have : |1 0.4( | [- ]
++
Jack
Le 13 janv. 08 à 19:55, Jamie Bullock a écrit :
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 17:17 +0000, Jamie Bullock wrote:
The pd abstraction is essentially syntactic sugar, so instead of doing:
|0.4( | [t b a] | / |1( / | / [- ]
You can just do:
|0.4( | [! - 1]
As someone just pointed out to me, this is also syntactic sugar for
the leaner:[0.4( | [swap 1] \ / [- ]
Jamie
-- www.postlude.co.uk
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
what's that all about? chaining useless objects? m.
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
[2( [-1] [abs]
extra intelligent proof. i hope you understood what i mean.
fmgasdr IOhannes
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
marius schebella wrote:
what's that all about? chaining useless objects?
which object is useless? [-], [abs]? message boxes?
m.
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
[2( [-1] [abs]
this should have read:
[2( | [- 1] | [abs]
and was a response to hard off's patch [0.4( | [- 1] | [abs]
to calculate "1 - 0.4" the 'other way round'. i only meant to say that abs(x-y) is not the same as (y-x), whereas -(x-y) is.
fgmar IOhannes
-
Andy Farnell -
hard off -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Jack -
Jamie Bullock -
marius schebella