On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:42 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/20/2010 12:37 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
While I can't really comment on the implementation since i haven't reviewed it in depth, I can say that I am a fan of having the interface be a series of *bang objects over having a [loadbang] with arguments. I think its nice, simple, and clear. Then we also can have things like [propertybang] for implementing Properties panels in abstractions.
ahm, what is wrong with the [propertybang] as found in iemguts? and how would the inclusion of [initbang] be related to this?
or is it just a general comment on why you (and me :-)) prefer a number of *bang objects over e.g. [loadbang close]
as for the implementation: i don't care if it was implemented differently. iirc, i tried to follow the implementation style as closely as that of the rest of Pd ;-)
I'm saying I like the interface of having a suite of objects called *bang rather than [loadbang close], etc. it makes them super easy to use and remember.
[initbang] [loadbang] [propertybang] [closebang]
Also, I've used [initbang] some in Pd-extended and so far it works well. [closebang] is tricky because the patch is being deleted when its triggered.
well yes, that's the idea of [closebang], no? i don't really understand what is tricky about it.
Well, it doesn't really seem to work. Or at least the [closebang] in Pd-extended doesn't seem to ever output the bang.
.hc
mfdsdfg IOhannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkxuTf0ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvSQPACeMDNF4W9d/HZ185nYXePNzG5J QmsAoKAjmfYdF4G/36w/Sch6vsB01YKU =3f+6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
----------------------------------------------------------------------------