What I was implying, then, is that if [savestate] brings this kind of functionality, albeit tangentially, then why not include specific [initbang] and [closebang] objects as well? That would solve a longstanding feature request without kludging the [savestate] mechanism which may/or may not change.
On Sep 8, 2018, at 12:00 PM, pd-dev-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:04:14 +0200 From: IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at> To: pd-dev@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-dev@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] savestate Message-ID: <0fc97332-28de-103d-22ab-61433ae33c77@iem.at mailto:0fc97332-28de-103d-22ab-61433ae33c77@iem.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On 9/3/18 3:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Also, does the right outlet effectively act as a "save bang"? This might be tangentially useful for some data structure abstractions...
what i find even more exiting, is that the left outlet effectively acts as an "init bang", finally allowing you to create abstractions with a dynamic number of iolets in Pd-vanilla (in a way that survives saving both the abstraction and its containing patch).
gfmard IOhannes
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/