--- On Thu, 8/19/10, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu wrote:
From: Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [PD-dev] run-up to release 0.43 To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hans@at.or.at, pd-dev@iem.at Date: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 10:44 PM Hi Jonathan -
I don't feel confortable with the design but don't understand the rationale for them well enough to know how to evaluate them. (And I think initbang and closebang are totally different animals...)
They definitely are very different.
As for [initbang] - my only use has been for making abstractions that can spawn a variable number of inlets/outlets. That's the only way I've used it and the only way I've ever seen it used-- if there are other uses maybe someone else on this list can give an example.
The [initbang] object gives abstractions the ability to do something that otherwise would only be possible by coding an external in another programming language. For example, with [initbang] I can quickly make an abstraction that can act like Max/MSP's [trigger] object-- where you can specify numeric values as arguments ( like [trigger b 0] ).
I want to redesign loadbang to take arguments, one of which could indicate at what "phase" of loading or closing the message should come out -- but this is a bigger design problem than I'm able to attack right now. I worry, though, that enshrining the proposed initbang/closebang will make thiings uglier and more complicated than necessary.
The addition of initbang would be a rather restricted ugliness, since a) neither [loadbang] nor [initbang] have an inlet (and therefore must always be at the head of an object chain), and b) both have a single outlet that sends a single message, and that message is a bang in both cases.
If future compatibility is the issue, and if the current [initbang] is to be a subset of the features of future [loadbang], wouldn't it be fairly straightforward to make [initbang] an alias of future [loadbang] (like a shortcut to whatever args you have to give future [loadbang] to get the functionality of current [initbang])?
-Jonathan
cheers Miller
Miller- would you mind commenting on the
initbang/closebang patch
on Sourceforge, as to why it's still not included in
your Pd?
Thanks, Jonathan
I'm curious what features you have in mind, and
looking forward
to having you in NYC. Perhaps we should have a mini PdCon
here
in the Fall :)
.hc
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 17:06 -0700, Miller
Puckette wrote:
Hi all,
I have only 2 weeks left in the vicinity of
my usual
collection of testing
machines (will be in New York Sept 1 - Jan.
1!) and so
should probably
try to get 0.43 finalized. I have several
bugs
to work on but I think the
whole thing is ready to put out compiled
"test
versions" for people to
exercise.
I'll try not to add new "features" but just
fix bugs
for the next 2 weeks --
I'll have all fall for the next bunch of
features
(including, perhaps, the
ones I've been trying to find time to work
on).
I'll do my usual compiling and spot testing,
hopefully
putting out the
test versions within the next day.
cheers Miller
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at