On 2010-08-24 22:17, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
I'd love to see an example of this in action. Just from your description I'm wondering why you wouldn't do the fade from inside the abstraction, and just delay destroying it until the fade out has finished.
ever tried to delay destroying an object? i'm mainly talking about objects that get automatically recreated by Pd (not where i just chose to remove the object because i don't like it any more)
Rumors can only start when people don't choose their words carefully.
you are very optimistic. at least i would rephrase to: "Rumors start because people cannot choose their words carefully."
as a matter of fact, i think [loadbang] has a bad naming as well.
But unless you have some extraordinarily clear name in mind as a replacement that outweighs the problems of replacing an object
i'm not suggesting to replace the name [loadbang].
that is currently Max compatible and has a startup flag with its name in it (not to mention however many people's patches that depend upon it), there's not much to be done about it.
Hm, looking at Max's docs I see [loadbang] sends out a bang on double click. That's pretty nifty!
i think it's pretty daft, as a [loadbang] is a way to automate things without user interaction whereas double clicking only makes sense in user interaction. anyhow, if you think it's really missing roll your own (or use the attached)
fgmadr IOhannes