On 2010-08-23 17:33, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Yeah, we definitely don't want [initbang] to be used too often, I can
i would also like to state, that we shouldn't use [metro] too often. reversely, one cannot use [trigger] too often. so Pd should print out a warning if there is no [t] in the patch whenever it is saved.
understand that. I just differ with how we should deal with the problem. I think it should be handled in the documentation rather than making the programming part more complicated.
seriously, i don't see so many drawbacks with [initbang]. the biggest issue right now, is that there is no [initbang] in Pd-vanilla. this makes patches using [initbang] incompatible with Pd-vanilla. once it was included, this issue would become nought.
I could see the initbang help path having a section called "When to NOT use initbang" then it would include your example below with the example of how to use it.
hmm, i guess some words are missing here, as i don't understand why we would include an example of how to use it in the "when to NOT use it" section.
anyhow, in most cases [initbang] can be used as a replacement for [loadbang]. the only difference is, that [initbang] will not make it to the outside of the patch using [outlet]s.
so you cannot use [initbang] to initialize the parent patch. darn, bad naming again. probably [createbang] would be better (esp. if [closebang] is renamed to [destroybang]) or use [constructorbang] and [destructorbang]
anyhow, whatever the name of the object (even [loadbang really-early]), th changes to the c-sources will be very similar.
The initbang help patch is in a pretty sorry state right now... its in SVN doc/pddp if anyone wants to take it on.
probably we should wait whether this evolves before documenting things to be abandoned.
fgmasdr IOhannes