--- On Wed, 11/3/10, Andy Farnell <padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk> wrote:
> From: Andy Farnell <padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [PD] Purpose of sig~ > To: pd-list@iem.at > Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 5:14 PM > There are some uses of [sig~] which > are not immediately > obvious but turn out to be desirable. By definition it > is useful any place you want a message domain value > converted > to a signal, without any further ado. Without it, relying > only on implicit conversion you might never have access to > a signal except by a degenerate idiom like > > [$1( > | > [line~] > > > Crucially, [sig~] can be given a creation parameter, as in > [sig~ 1], and will not need any messy initialisation > like using a [loadbang] in order to obtain a signal > constant immediately. > > Why might you want a signal constant? Perhaps for > a relation like (1 - x), useful in panning, crossfading, > or (1 / x) common in waveshaping. > > Matju raises a question over DSP on/off. I have > encountered > problems relying on implicit right inlet conversion > with deep abstractions, so from practical experience > it seems safer to use [sig~] in these circumsatnces. Is this because signal inlets of signal objects (except for the leftmost) don't accept one-element lists? If so I think it'd be a cheaper workaround putting a [t f] before those inlets. > > It also make code more readable to make important > message/signal distinctions explicit. > They are already explicit-- at least in pd-extended, where the signal inlets are visually distinct from the control inlets. -Jonathan _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list