On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: Ok, so you want to extend the tentacles of Pd's caste system further? Abstractions for the plebe, externals for gentlemen. It looks like you didn't read that line of mine below?Don't accept Pd's limitations, push for $@ and/or $# today!
I mean, shouldn't abstractions have access to the same features as externals do? Why would a limitation in the way abstractions currently can accept arguments, define how [once] behaves, forever?
If you can't use $@ and $# because they're not Miller-approved, then what's the problem with using an external that will provide you the kind of argument-fetching that you need, for making the object behave like people would expect? I mean something like MAX's [patcherargs] instead of trying to fit with the dumb ways of $1 and construe it as a feature or as a principle to extend over all the behaviour of Pd.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
