On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu wrote:
Here's a guess - I think each copy of the abstraction binds itself to a symbol, "pd-<name>". Binding is fast bt unbinding is linear-time in the number of things bound to the symbol... ouch.
There's a good reason to bind toplevels and named sub-patches to ther names, but I think there's little reason to do it for abstractions - perhaps I can take this out, but I'd have to leave it as an option for compatibility (ouch!)
Miller
Hi Miller,
Just very generally BTW: Do you mean binary compatibility or patch compatibility? Either way, what are your thoughts about the possibility of a future Pd-1.0 which would break (some kind of) compatibility for the sake of revolutionary progress?
András