On 2010-11-03 15:46, Jamie Bullock wrote: > > Hi all, > > This is more of philosophical question than anything else. I'm curious to > know why [sig~] hasn't been designed out of Pd. Why not have implicit control > -> signal conversion everywhere it is possible? > > For example why not allow this? > > |2( |3( > | | > [+~ ] >
i don't think i understand your question. the above is totally legal on the versions of Pd i have installed on this machine. otoh, [sig~] has been there for ages and longer. some old patches might still use it, because _then_ you had to explicitely convert to signals. should [sig~] be removed and break these patches? and while i do use implicit float/signal conversion in my patches, i think explicit conversion is not that bad either: it may prevent people from hooking a slider into a [*~] and then complain why they get glitches. fgmasdr IOhannes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
