On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Yeah, lets not turn a style guide into a style law. Sometimes crossings are not avoidable indeed.
Well, I don't just mean that. I also mean that sometimes crossings are clearer than any replacement for them. Often a simple X of wires is much more expressive than a [s]/[r] pair made only for the sake of following an unpractically stringent standard about crossings.
I seem to go like that: 1) avoid crossings
Although, when I think my patch is messy, I first try to remove excess crossings, I can't possibly put avoiding crossings above everything else all of the time.
You have to make exceptions for what I was calling "cross-connect" and "side-cross-connect" in PdCon04; that is, respectively, crossing wires from two outlets of one object to two inlets of another, and from one outlet of each of two objects, to one inlet of the other. It would look very silly avoiding that crossing using a [s]/[r] pair. There are other variations of the same, using more wires. For example, see seq_fold-help.pd in GridFlow for a version with three wires.
3) if you really have to cross over objects, make the patch cords go in straight vertical lines (straight vertical cords are the best cords anyway) 4) even then avoid crossing over object inlets or outlets, as it is ambiguous which cords are connected.
I'd put (4) over (3), really.But those efforts are foiled by font issues and by the fact that Pd never stores the object width in the case of plain objectboxes. So if you change the font you can get a different positioning of outlets.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
