Not to be a stinker,
These are very easy to implement as abstractions in Pd vanilla even
without expr~, yes-no?
[>~] :
[inlet~] [inlet]
| /
[-~ $1]
|
[max~ 0]
| \
[/~]
|
[outlet~]
[<~] :
[inlet~] [inlet]
| /
[-~ $1]
|
[min~ 0]
| \
[/~]
|
[outlet~]
[==~] :
[inlet~] [inlet]
| /
[-~ $1]
| \
[sig~ 1] [/~ ]
\__ _/
[-~]
|
[outlet~]
or :
[inlet~] [inlet]
| /
[-~ $1]
| \
[/~]
|
[*~ -1]
|
[+~ 1]
|
[outlet~]
Not that this helps at all with the special character problem, and
they're bound to be less efficient. One cool thing, though, is the
ability to turn both inlets into signal inlets (but ditching the $1).
Matt
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:18:08 +0900
> From: "hard off" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PD] really annoying question about tildes~
> To: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: pd-list@iem.at
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> yeah totally.
>
> it seems nonsensical that pd has > and < for control signals, but not for
> audiorate signals.
>
> and as andy obiwan mentioned before [pow~] would also be very useful.
>
>
> as far as i can guess, all of these objects are very simple code-wise.
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
