--- On Thu, 8/26/10, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
From: IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] initbang and friends To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: pd-dev@iem.at Date: Thursday, August 26, 2010, 9:05 AM On 2010-08-25 19:16, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Also, if you roll too many of your own in Pd, you end
up doing so at the
expense of portability. I don't want to send a
library of my hacks to
standard objects with every patch I show to someone
else.
the implementation i attached in my last email was pd-vanilla.
it's a simple drop-in replacement abstraction for [loadbang] which does approximately what you asked for (i used single click rather than double click).
I thought it wasn't possible to override internal objects with abstractions. (I'm guessing I'm right since you named your object "myloadbang" and not "loadbang".)
So why are you calling your example a "drop-in replacement"?
i don't consider "abstractions" to be "hacks" (at least as long as you give any of the usual negative connotations to the word).
It's a hack in the negative sense because I'm forced to care about whether I remembered to send the abstraction along with any patch where I use [myloadbang]. Or I have to remember to _not_ use myloadbang in simple patches, or remember to search and replace before I send it, or to zip it up with the patch. I'd rather have a hack in the positive sense, where I can really drop in my [loadbang] abstraction, make it override the internal, use the small convenience that I think it adds, then just send my vanilla patch to others (who, if they're just going to run my patch, aren't going to see the patching convenience of the abstraction anyway).
I think there are other situations where the user would like to try out a tweak to an internal object. For example, I might use a Max compatible [t] object and just continue to use it the way it is in Pd, but when my friends who use Max send me one of their patches their [t f 0] objects will work correctly.
-Jonathan
mfasdr IOhannes