I already made a PR which addresses the issues pointed out by Jonathan: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/1112

Em qui., 6 de ago. de 2020 às 16:08, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.com> escreveu:

> On Thursday, August 6, 2020, 2:07:09 PM EDT, matthew brandi <mfbrandi@outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear people

> In my role as village idiot, I am asking whether the string "fwd" in a message has a

special meaning to inlet.

> Naively, I was expecting inlet to pass the string to the subpatch, but it seems not

to. See example patch attached.

AFAICT that's a regression due to the way Pd Vanilla implemented message forwarding for

[inlet~ fwd]. That's a feature that allows a signal inlet of a subpatch/abstraction to forward

non-signal messages to the right outlet of [inlet~ fwd]. (The right outlet sprouts when the

"fwd" argument is present.)

Another regression-- there is no longer an error if you try to send a non-signal message to

[inlet~].

Another regression-- [inlet~ fwd] unconditionally allocates space on the stack to copy the

entire incoming message. If you generate a long enough message this will blow the stack

and cause Pd to crash. Esp. important given that Windows stack is much smaller than the RAM

available for heap allocation on most machines.

Also-- I *think* Pd Vanilla doesn't forward pointer messages through [inlet~ fwd]. It appeared to be an oversight-- at least I didn't see any comment about it.

A GSoC student spent some time reimplementing this in Purr Data, so none of thiese should be

issues there.

I think it's a good idea if you're changing and fixing stuff to also send a PR to vanilla as a proposal. Would you consider doing that as well?  

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list