PS: is it just my broken thunderbird that fails to put your answers into the correct thread (or any thread at all) or is there a reason why alpine does not add any "in-reply-to" or "references" fields?

It is because I set my subscription to "nomail" and whenever I want to reply to something, I just paste it from the Mailman/Pipermail archive.

On 2010-04-01 16:26, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

On 2010-04-01 03:18, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

...

note also that merely loading [propertybang] is disabling the properties menu item on every GOP in its parent patch except the ones that use [propertybang]...

fixed now (as far as i can)

ah good, I should've reported that one before, then.

...

...

note also that [propertybang] writes to a global variable in a way that no other external can compete with, apparently...

that's the unfortunate way how Pd handles classes. i would love it, if each instance would actually have a copy of the class data, rather than all instances pointing to the same class data.

Yes, me too, and it's the case for externals, just not abstractions, which are all sharing the same t_class as [pd] [page] and any other patch (canvas_class).

But I think I recall that you had something more "hookable" with the savefn than with propertiesfn, meaning that it would play nice with other externals trying to do the same thing, provided that they played as nice. (think of two such externs being loaded in any order)

I also recall that the old implementation of [propertybang] was a little easier to play with because then I could have a propertiesfn that did exactly the same as [propertybang] and then the load order wouldn't matter and I could have my own [propertybang]-like class which would get messages through the [send]/[receive] interface that is used by the old [propertybang]. However, when I coded my external while looking at the old [propertybang] code, I was already running the new [propertybang] code and that's where I found out about the new system that replaces [send]/[receive] in it.

But then, I don't absolutely need to have my own [propertybang] class, it's just that I expected to do so, because I expected some of the users of my library to expect to not have to install anything else than pd-vanilla.

Why is it called [propertybang] instead of [propertiesbang] ?

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801