Re: [sc-dev] [approve] Function-bund

[Scott Wilson <sdwilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, it's not worth it then to me anyway, as I almost never do that, 
and thus don't see the point of a shortcut. For cases where you want 
the bundle back I'd be happy with makeBundle.

I'm just thinking of a quick and easy way of having a number of things 
happen simultaneously, ASAP, i.e. a bundle equivalent of Function-play.

S.

On 29 Dec 2005, at 23:18, James Harkins wrote:

> I'd prefer it if it returned the bundle without sending it. Then it's
> up to you what you do with it after that.
>
> hjh
>
> On 12/29/05, Scott Wilson <sdwilson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I quite often find myself needing to bundle a few things that need to
> > be sent immediately, i.e. latency isn't an issue, but I want them to 
> > be
> > executed simultaneously.
> >
> > It occurred to me that a shortcut might be nice for this:
> >
> > + Function {
> >
> >         bund { arg server;
> >                 (server ? Server.default).makeBundle(nil, this);
> >         }
> >
> > }
> >
> > Useful? Bloat?
> >
> > S.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sc-dev mailing list
> > sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev
>
>
> --
> James Harkins /// dewdrop world
> jamshark70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.dewdrop-world.net
>
> "Come said the Muse,
> Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
> Sing me the universal."  -- Whitman
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc-dev mailing list
> sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev