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