i just discovered, that a [loadbang] can trigger even if Pd is started with "-noloadbang".
1.) create an abstraction myloadbang.pd [loadbang] | [print $0-loadbanged]
2.) create a patch that contains (only) a [myloadbang] object, save it as "myloadbang-test.pd"
3.) start Pd with "pd -noloadbang myloadbang-test.pd"
3a.) observe that the loadbang is suppressed (as there is no "1004-loadbanged: bang" printout)
4.) in the myloadbang-test.pd patch, create a new instance of [myloadbang].
4a) observe that the instance does get loadbanged (the Pd-console shows "1005-loadbanged: bang")
is this intended behaviour? (I don't have a string opinion either way; but i wonder...).
gfmasdr IOhannes
I never thought about it - my original intent in -noloadbang was to allow one to open a patch that might be crashing Pd somehow because of a loadbang action (such as a batch process that automatically exits after a fixed time).
I'm not sure what the correct behavior should be.
cheers Miller
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:47:51PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
i just discovered, that a [loadbang] can trigger even if Pd is started with "-noloadbang".
1.) create an abstraction myloadbang.pd [loadbang] | [print $0-loadbanged]
2.) create a patch that contains (only) a [myloadbang] object, save it as "myloadbang-test.pd"
3.) start Pd with "pd -noloadbang myloadbang-test.pd"
3a.) observe that the loadbang is suppressed (as there is no "1004-loadbanged: bang" printout)
4.) in the myloadbang-test.pd patch, create a new instance of [myloadbang].
4a) observe that the instance does get loadbanged (the Pd-console shows "1005-loadbanged: bang")
is this intended behaviour? (I don't have a string opinion either way; but i wonder...).
gfmasdr IOhannes
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 05/10/2017 09:20 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
I never thought about it - my original intent in -noloadbang was to allow one to open a patch that might be crashing Pd somehow because of a loadbang action (such as a batch process that automatically exits after a fixed time).
right. that's what i think as well; and that's why i also don't know whether it's a bug or not.
I'm not sure what the correct behavior should be.
however: the behaviour did change between 0.46 and 0.47. older versions of Pd would *never* automatically emit a loadbang if the "-noloadbang" flag was given.
gmdsar IOhannes
-
IOhannes m zmölnig -
Miller Puckette