Julian Rohrhuber

Now it is like this: It should be precisely repeating, there is an extra value at the 8th position.

Just a note: when I wrote Recorder, I consciously called `numChannels` so, because it would be redundant to call them `recNumChannels`: we are already in a recorder. Also, the idea...

> Why can't we just make `addToTail` on synths the same as `after`? Would this break anything? I think this is a good idea. What it may "break" is that...

> What I was trying to do was just to make that encapsulation clearer, also with a view to maybe potentially having multiple Recorder instances at once on the same...

I am happy if you can fix it if something is wrong. What I don't understand yet is what is wrong with the way it currently runs? ```supercollider s.boot; a...

Thank you, both. My impresion is that the idea that a particular souluion (e.g. remove respondsTo in favour of tryPerform) is unavoidable does not help so much to really find...

> `respondsTo` is asks a question about implementation, not interfaces (which don't exist), nor messaging (which is impossible). Interfaces do not exist in an explicit form, but of course interfaces...

> The most flexible option is just to call the message and let the code fail. Would you like to continue discussing my arguments on the downsides of this or...

I really appreciate the discussion, it seems that respondsTo is to be avoided, but can be a good solution if you don't want to write up an interface for a...

> A first attempt to mitigate this might be... > > `if (x.respondsTo(\foo) and: y.respondsTo(\bar)) { ^ x.foo + y.bar }` Just a note, you can write: `x.respondsTo([\foo, \bar])`.