ok, then it was a misunderstanding, I am also not saying that is has to be in the core of pd. (is there an official policy that objectclasses which can be created as abstractions should not be included as c objectclass?...) but now, when I think about this... why is there now pd-featured abstraction list? counter would be an object that should be included in "standard abstractions folder". or is everybody supposed to create his own version of useful abstractions over and over again? marius.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> did I say something wrong? > > no > >> there are several counter objects. but none >> built into Pd. >> and yes, I was refering to the max counter-objectclass, because that is >> how the thread started. >> the max version can count up and down (and also up&down), has optional >> startig and end position and can be reset, it also has an outlet that >> tells you when you reached the maximum number and also when it reached >> the minimum/starts recounting. the closest pd version is from cyclone. >> and counter *is* useful. > > i do not doubt that it is useful. > i only tried to say that i don't see a reason to include it into the > core of Pd, as Pd already gives you the possibility to write a > [counter] of your personal taste. > it is not a feature that is "missing" (like inheritance). > > mfgads.r > IOhannes > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
