On Nov 16, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> I didn't think of changing the behavior by using different wrappers, >> that makes sense. I guess with nqpoly4 vs polypoly the main >> difference in the wrapper. I think there are a couple advantages to >> not using a wrapper: >> >> - makes it easier and more transparent to find instances when >> debugging, [$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9] is a strange construct to see > > Yep, that's true, but OTOH a wrapper is just a Pd patch, which is > much easier > to change than a dynamic patching construct. That has to be taken into > account when it comes to longer-term maintainability. Generally > less dynamic > patching is better.
I used to think that, but some recent improvements have made dynamic patching much easier. First, your idea of using a subpatch and send/ receives is super helpful. Also, the settable send makes things much easier to follow. Building on your work, I think I've managed to get these polys to be pretty simple and straightforward. They could even fit all on one patch without subpatches. >> - it should make it much easier to make the *poly objectclass behave >> like a normal objectclass, with one file being in extra, but usable >> anywhere. This would require [ggee/getdir], but it should be pretty >> straightforward from there. > > You mean getdir for finding the objects to instantiate? Maybe you can > elaborate this a bit... The big problem of all *polys so far is that > it's hard for them to finde the objects to instantiate. At first I had > hoped that your solution of omitting the wrapper would be an easy fix, > but in my tests it showed the same issue. Yes, I am thinking of using [getdir] to get the path of the parent patch, then adding that path to the *poly's subpatch using [declare]. .hc >> I am not a fan of huge routes, unless they are being dynamically >> generated. It makes some really nice line drawings when you have 30 >> or more instances :) > > Yep, it looks really cool. ;) > >> Is there any real difference in efficiency between one big route and >> many small ones? > > I don't think so. I'd guess that small ones are a tiny bit less > efficient because of the additional inlets, but I wouldn't care about > this. > > Ciao > -- > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism. - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
