while we're at it, any reason why not to have a "set" method for
[send~] and [catch~]? Seems inconsistent
For the same reason why you can't set the name of [delwrite~]: it's the
object owning the buffer. In theory, it would be possible to bind the
object to another name, but why would you want to do that? Also, you
would have to notify *all* existing [delread~] objects, so they have a
chance to update the delay line (if needed).
Generally, resources have a fixed name and you only dynamically set the
name in accessor objects. For example, you would set the array in [array
set] and [array get], but you wouldn't change the name of the [array
define] *).
Christof
*) Actuallly, it's possible with the "rename" method, but it's *very*
confusing.
On 02.03.2021 02:08, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Em seg., 1 de mar. de 2021 às 20:40, Alexandre Torres Porres
<por...@gmail.com <mailto:por...@gmail.com>> escreveu:
I can also try a PR
I give up already, waiting for you :)
Em seg., 1 de mar. de 2021 às 21:02, Christof Ressi
<i...@christofressi.com <mailto:i...@christofressi.com>> escreveu:
Pd objects are (unfortunately) not notified on connection changes
and I can't think of a sane way to work around this. The real
solution would be to add an API for object state change
notifications. In the meantime, I would say: forget about it.
forgotten, but: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/1275
<https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/1275>
while we're at it, any reason why not to have a "set" method for
[send~] and [catch~]? Seems inconsistent
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
