You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I find myself wanting to do stuff like emit a bang or a more complicated message like set 10 from an expr, and right now I have to build that by chaining an extra object off of an expr outlet. It strikes me as a useful extension to allow expr outlets to send arbitrary messages, not just numbers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Something like bang is easy, but if I want to do anything more complex, to my taste at least, the extra objects start to feel burdensome, especially if I want to (say) vary the symbol being sent.
[expr] is meant for mathematical expressions. if you want to construct messages based on the results, you can do this with seperate objects. there's no need to do this within the [expr] object itself.
I don't know that I want a textual scripting language per se, but I'll certainly say I find it frustrating how Pd specifically chooses to draw some semantic distinctions.
In any case, thanks for the responses to this and my other recent issues.
I find myself wanting to do stuff like emit a
bang
or a more complicated message likeset 10
from anexpr
, and right now I have to build that by chaining an extra object off of anexpr
outlet. It strikes me as a useful extension to allowexpr
outlets to send arbitrary messages, not just numbers.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: