Hello, I had another thread where I used my canvas "get" method to hide $0 in s/r pairs in an abstraction
and make it possible to more easily specify the scope of a variable using two abstractions named [to] and [from]. Now I'm extending that concept to nonlocal signal objects: s~/r~ and throw~/catch~. After looking through the list I've realized that some of the confusion about these objects occurs because the names are completely arbitrary and don't reflect the one-to-many/many-to-one division between them.* (Side question: are there any many-to-many nonlocal signal externals? If so how does the cpu usage compare to throw~/catch~?) So here are the names for my abstraction wrappers: send~/receive~ = copy~/paste~ Thus with [copy~ foo] you are taking the incoming signal and copying it to whatever is at the receive-symbol $0-foo, which would be a [paste~ foo] object. The one-to-many connection is that one can copy only one thing at a time (or on systems where you have multiple copy buffers they each have a different key combination or icon on the interface, similar to the way we give a different receive-symbol for each s~ in Pd), but you can paste it as many times as you wish. throw~/catch~ = tobus~/frombus~ I think this one is self-explanatory. However, I'm not sure if "bus" really implies many-to-one (as opposed to many-to-many). Maybe there is a better metaphor. Would love to hear if anyone has suggestions on these names. Thanks, Jonathan * actually I think it's worse than that, because if you see that the control objects s/r are many-to-many, you could reasonably assume that s~/r~ would be many-to-many as well. _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
