Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > So the other kind of consistency in question here is consistency of > usage. All similar functions should have the same arguments, for > example. Which type of consistency trumps the other? That's the > question at hand. > > I personally feel that its not more linguistically consistent to have > [once] default open when it has no argument. But this is > inconsistent in usage with similar objects ([spigot]...).
I would speculate, that users would expect [once] to be open as default. While I generally don't use [once] in its own right, several of my patches have [pd once] subpatches, and these all default to open. There also is a very similar abstraction in the RTC-lib called "first-bang", which is like a [once] that is open as default but additionally passes bangs coming in after the first one to a second outlet. Nowhere in RTC-lib [first-bang] is used with a loadbang to its second, "reset"-inlet. I guess, basically we disagree about what should be valued higher: consistency or usefulness. I consider a default-closed [once] rather useless. Not completely useless, but "not used 99% of the time" and the 1% can be dealt with through a loadbang, which is contrary to a default-close or default-open [spigot]: Here both versions are used about equally often. This actually is similar to the inconsistency of [timer]: Most of the time, [timer] follows a [trigger bang bang] object (or rather a [t b b] object which even has the same visual length as [timer]) and the connections are made in a non-crossed fashion. That's the (only?) reason, [timer] has its active inlet on the right. In this case, Miller also chose usefulness over consistency, and I'm glad he did. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__ _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev