hard off wrote:
[0.4 (
|
[- 1]
|
[abs]
hmm...
[2(
[-1]
[abs]
how about
|
[- 1]
|
[* -1]
|
mfga.sdr
IOhannes
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
[2(
[-1]
[abs]
extra intelligent proof.
i hope you understood what i mean.
fmgasdr
IOhannes
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
what's that all about? chaining useless objects?
m.
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
[2(
[-1]
[abs]
extra intelligent proof.
i hope you understood what i mean.
fmgasdr
IOhannes
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
Hi folks,
This is ultra-simple, but I find it so useful that I thought I'd make it
available. Basically it's an abstraction that provides functionality
equivalent to Max's [!/], [!-] etc. With these objects the inlets are in
the opposite order to the operands. The pd abstraction is essentially
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 17:17 +, Jamie Bullock wrote:
The pd abstraction is essentially
syntactic sugar, so instead of doing:
|0.4(
|
[t b a]
|/
|1( /
| /
[- ]
You can just do:
|0.4(
|
[! - 1]
As someone just pointed out to me, this is also syntactic sugar for the
You also have :
|1 0.4(
|
[- ]
++
Jack
Le 13 janv. 08 à 19:55, Jamie Bullock a écrit :
On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 17:17 +, Jamie Bullock wrote:
The pd abstraction is essentially
syntactic sugar, so instead of doing:
|0.4(
|
[t b a]
|/
|1( /
| /
[- ]
You can just do:
|0.4(
Funny, I was just saying to Jamie about the more than one way to do it
and how old working habits die hard. I've started to use list input distrubution
much more recently, but still find I do things the old way by force of habit.
Maybe, as a personal choice, I find explicit operations are a bit
[0.4 (
|
[- 1]
|
[abs]
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
