i received this rationale from miller not too long ago for the hesitation in including iohannes' methods:
"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."
so it's obviously still a work in progress, regardless initbang/closebang are at least fairly consistent with constructor/destructor methods in other languages. we'll see where this goes.
cheers, dmotd
IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Charles Henry wrote:
There is a way to write the code for a "new" or "create" routine in your class via [loadbang],
where did you get that impression from? [loadbang] does _not_ work as a constructor (it's too late). that's why i had written [initbang], which unfortunately never made it into Pd.
so you need a way to code a "free" or "delete" routine as well.
that's why i had written [closebang], which (surprise!) never made it into Pd either
mfga.s IOhannes
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list