Hi list,
What's the story on the following patch?
[initbang]/[closebang] for patch constructor/destuctor - ID: 1544041
I know it says the status is "open," but on the other hand this patch was added
in 2006. From the related threads on pd user and dev, all I've seen are repeated
hopes from various developers that these objects be included as internal
objects in pd.
The only negative comment I've seen was indirectly from dmotd on
2009-03-14, quoting Miller:
"Anyhow, I'm trying to think of a better mechanism for allowing abstractions
to have variable numbers of inlets/outlets, so I'm hoping initbang won't
be necessary in the long run.
closebang, though, will probably be needed in some form or other."
I'd like to ask: what is the problem with [initbang] as it is, and what would
a "better mechanism" look like? If a "better mechanism" is not currently
in the works, could these two objects be included in pd-vanilla so that in the
meantime people can make abstractions that have dynamic numbers of
inlets/outlets that will work on both versions of pd? (I've never used
[closebang] but I imagine the same reasoning holds for it as well.)
Similar questions about:
$@ and $# expansion (argc, argv) - ID: 1543850
It looks like the discussion just stopped, and I couldn't find any threads on user or dev list.
$@ would be very useful, as well as matju's suggestion about some kind of "nth argument
and all the rest that follow."
-Jonathan