When you create an abstraction dynamically, it does not get a loadbang. Is there an object that sends a similar "loadbang" when the abstraction is created dynamically?
I know I can send the abstraction a "loadbang" message, but I would like it to be automatic.
Other question : does closebang work? If so, how?
Tom
Hey Tom,
If you look at pt.layerfx in pixelTANGO I'm sending a bang to all dynamic abstractions after all the creation messages have been sent and an additional (arbitrary) delay. It seems to work...
It would be damn handy to have tcl/tk report when a dynamic patch has finished building.
B.
Thomas Ouellet Fredericks wrote:
When you create an abstraction dynamically, it does not get a loadbang. Is there an object that sends a similar "loadbang" when the abstraction is created dynamically?
I know I can send the abstraction a "loadbang" message, but I would like it to be automatic.
Other question : does closebang work? If so, how?
Tom
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
hi ben
----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Bogart" ben@ekran.org
Hey Tom,
If you look at pt.layerfx in pixelTANGO I'm sending a bang to all dynamic abstractions after all the creation messages have been sent
and
an additional (arbitrary) delay. It seems to work...
are you sure, that a delay is necessary? in my experience, the determinisme of pd is absolutely reliable. i mean, when i use a [t b b] and i use the first 'bang' to create the whole patch and the second one the send the 'loadbang' it works perfectly. afaik, pd rather drops the audio-processing for while than dropping a message. at least i experienced that if i create big patches dynamically, i get audio drop-outs.
It would be damn handy to have tcl/tk report when a dynamic patch has finished building.
in case i am right, this wouldn't be necessary anymore... or would it?
cheers roman
*cough*
I unfortunatly found many issues with things not happening in the correct time. Well that is to say when you dynamically create an array of objects the time between the message being send and the object actually being ready to receive messages is not 0ms. I can't remember the delay I needed, but indeed some abstractions would not get the bang message if I sent it immediatly after the message to create the last abstraction. This is on OSX, which has had some GUI issues in the past, could be related.
Oh and this is also because I'm not creating my whole dynamic patch with one message, but multiple messages. (This is because I'm creating one abstraction for each file in a directory)Also the number of files is indeterminant so I can't create one message to do it all...
I guess the best way to test if the last object is done would be to have it send a message "I'm done!" to the parent patch and then we know all the abstractions are ready... Maybe I'll do this...
Back to replacing my TOTs with PYs.
b>
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi ben
----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Bogart" ben@ekran.org
Hey Tom,
If you look at pt.layerfx in pixelTANGO I'm sending a bang to all dynamic abstractions after all the creation messages have been sent
and
an additional (arbitrary) delay. It seems to work...
are you sure, that a delay is necessary? in my experience, the determinisme of pd is absolutely reliable. i mean, when i use a [t b b] and i use the first 'bang' to create the whole patch and the second one the send the 'loadbang' it works perfectly. afaik, pd rather drops the audio-processing for while than dropping a message. at least i experienced that if i create big patches dynamically, i get audio drop-outs.
It would be damn handy to have tcl/tk report when a dynamic patch has finished building.
in case i am right, this wouldn't be necessary anymore... or would it?
cheers roman
please forgive my stubborness......... can you send me an example? i'm just wondering, because i once did a patch with dynamically created abs, in which other abs were created dynamically .. and so on, and it worked all fine (with several messages, too). also doing something like:
[112(
|
[t b b f]
| |
| [repeat 0]
| |
| [; pd-patch.pd obj 10 10 myabs(
|
[; pd-myabs.pd loadbang(
works fine on my machine, altough it takes a few miliseconds to create all [myabs], but all [myabs] get a loadbang. i never experienced yet that pd does NOT keep execution order because of the time it takes to build the gui or dsp-chain or whatever. but obviously i did not try everything.
cheers roman
----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Bogart" ben@ekran.org
*cough*
I unfortunatly found many issues with things not happening in the correct time. Well that is to say when you dynamically create an array of objects the time between the message being send and the object actually being ready to receive messages is not 0ms. I can't remember the delay I needed, but indeed some abstractions would not get the
bang
message if I sent it immediatly after the message to create the last abstraction. This is on OSX, which has had some GUI issues in the
past,
could be related.
Oh and this is also because I'm not creating my whole dynamic patch
with
one message, but multiple messages. (This is because I'm creating one abstraction for each file in a directory)Also the number of files is indeterminant so I can't create one message to do it all...
I guess the best way to test if the last object is done would be to
have
it send a message "I'm done!" to the parent patch and then we know all the abstractions are ready... Maybe I'll do this...
Back to replacing my TOTs with PYs.
b>
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi ben
----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Bogart" ben@ekran.org
Hey Tom,
If you look at pt.layerfx in pixelTANGO I'm sending a bang to all dynamic abstractions after all the creation messages have been sent
and
an additional (arbitrary) delay. It seems to work...
are you sure, that a delay is necessary? in my experience, the determinisme of pd is absolutely reliable. i mean, when i use a [t b
b]
and i use the first 'bang' to create the whole patch and the second
one
the send the 'loadbang' it works perfectly. afaik, pd rather drops the audio-processing for while than dropping a message. at least i experienced that if i create big patches dynamically, i get audio drop-outs.
It would be damn handy to have tcl/tk report when a dynamic patch has finished building.
in case i am right, this wouldn't be necessary anymore... or would
it?
cheers roman
Hey Roman,
I did not realize there was a special receive for a patch to send its loadbang! Thanks for teaching me a little something.
I was about to impliment this in my pixelTANGO abstractopm when I relized a little snag.
We can send messages to an abstraction:
[myabst]
with
[; pd-myabst.pd <
BUT what if I call my abstraction with:
[/long/ugly/path/to/myabst]
I dont think that this would work:
[; pd-/long/ugly/path/to/myabst.pd <
Ah, well it looks like you still use pd-myabst.pd
We'll that was fun, Now I need another python script to strip the pathname from the abstraction name!
I still think it is more elegant to do it this way.
Thanks for the tip Roman.
I'll let you know about any delay once I'm at that point.
B>
Roman Haefeli wrote:
please forgive my stubborness......... can you send me an example? i'm just wondering, because i once did a patch with dynamically created abs, in which other abs were created dynamically .. and so on, and it worked all fine (with several messages, too). also doing something like:
[112( | [t b b f] | |
| [repeat 0] | | | [; pd-patch.pd obj 10 10 myabs( | [; pd-myabs.pd loadbang(works fine on my machine, altough it takes a few miliseconds to create all [myabs], but all [myabs] get a loadbang. i never experienced yet that pd does NOT keep execution order because of the time it takes to build the gui or dsp-chain or whatever. but obviously i did not try everything.
cheers roman
----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Bogart" ben@ekran.org
*cough*
I unfortunatly found many issues with things not happening in the correct time. Well that is to say when you dynamically create an array of objects the time between the message being send and the object actually being ready to receive messages is not 0ms. I can't remember the delay I needed, but indeed some abstractions would not get the
bang
message if I sent it immediatly after the message to create the last abstraction. This is on OSX, which has had some GUI issues in the
past,
could be related.
Oh and this is also because I'm not creating my whole dynamic patch
with
one message, but multiple messages. (This is because I'm creating one abstraction for each file in a directory)Also the number of files is indeterminant so I can't create one message to do it all...
I guess the best way to test if the last object is done would be to
have
it send a message "I'm done!" to the parent patch and then we know all the abstractions are ready... Maybe I'll do this...
Back to replacing my TOTs with PYs.
b>
Roman Haefeli wrote:
hi ben
----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Bogart" ben@ekran.org
Hey Tom,
If you look at pt.layerfx in pixelTANGO I'm sending a bang to all dynamic abstractions after all the creation messages have been sent
and
an additional (arbitrary) delay. It seems to work...
are you sure, that a delay is necessary? in my experience, the determinisme of pd is absolutely reliable. i mean, when i use a [t b
b]
and i use the first 'bang' to create the whole patch and the second
one
the send the 'loadbang' it works perfectly. afaik, pd rather drops the audio-processing for while than dropping a message. at least i experienced that if i create big patches dynamically, i get audio drop-outs.
It would be damn handy to have tcl/tk report when a dynamic patch has finished building.
in case i am right, this wouldn't be necessary anymore... or would
it?
cheers roman
hi ben
----- Original Message ----- From: "B. Bogart" ben@ekran.org
*cough*
*cough cough*
I unfortunatly found many issues with things not happening in the correct time. Well that is to say when you dynamically create an array of objects the time between the message being send and the object actually being ready to receive messages is not 0ms. I can't remember the delay I needed, but indeed some abstractions would not get the
bang
message if I sent it immediatly after the message to create the last abstraction. This is on OSX, which has had some GUI issues in the
past,
could be related.
i attached a sligthly modified dir2abstractionArry.pd. it's working now without a [delay] in pt.layerfx.pd. i tested it under osx, too. actually it was not a gui, but a trigger issue. to avoid these kinds of troubles, i recommend to place the outlets of abstractions in their execution order from right to left - as pd-objs do - in order to make the abs visibly understandable.
Oh and this is also because I'm not creating my whole dynamic patch
with
one message, but multiple messages. (This is because I'm creating one abstraction for each file in a directory)Also the number of files is indeterminant so I can't create one message to do it all...
I guess the best way to test if the last object is done would be to
have
it send a message "I'm done!" to the parent patch and then we know all the abstractions are ready... Maybe I'll do this...
i hopefully can convince you, that pd always keeps the order of execution. :-) (which is important to know in terms of elegant programming).
cheers roman
b>
hi tom
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Ouellet Fredericks" iamonthebeach@gmail.com
When you create an abstraction dynamically, it does not get a
loadbang.
Is there an object that sends a similar "loadbang" when the abstraction is created dynamically?
afaik there isn't any similar object to [loadbang].
I know I can send the abstraction a "loadbang" message, but I would like it to be automatic.
what do you mean by automatic? when you use the event of creating your [abs] also for sending it a [; pd-abs.pd loadbang(-msg, wouldn't be that automatic? i didn't find a 'nicer' solution yet. if you create more than one [abs] dynamically, you need to give them sort of an ID as an argument in order to avoid banging them all every time you create a new one (if that would be a problem). i admit this is not quite elegant. once there was a discussion in the list about if there should be loadbang for dynamically created abs or not, but suddenly i forgot the advantages of the way it is now. but there are some, i think..... :-)
Other question : does closebang work? If so, how?
once i had this question too. afair, miller puckette said that he might would implement that in a later version of pd, but i'm not quite sure anymore about that.
Tom
cheers roman
-
B. Bogart -
Roman Haefeli -
Thomas Ouellet Fredericks