On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
This is IMHO the first valid argument against my suggested implementation you made so far and one I would agree with.
This is because much of the rest was about peripheral issues such as what you think of pd itself, what can be done about pd itself, and about the wording you used against the current "raise all_cords". If that's late for you, it's because your thread seemed to be about so much more than the bug in question. If you spend much of your mails talking about other issues, then this is what you can expect to get.
It seems to me then that encapsulating raise all_cords call into a function and prepending it with your suggested check ought to solve most if not all of the problems associated with this bug.
I didn't think about making it a function, but it wouldn't be a bad idea, given that it's currently done in two different places.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801