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>
To: pd-dev@lists.iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD-dev] savestate
Message-ID: <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
danomatika.com
robotcowboy.com