--- On Wed, 8/25/10, IOhannes m zmoelnig <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: IOhannes m zmoelnig <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PD-dev] initbang and friends WAS: run-up to release 0.43 > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 9:13 AM > On 2010-08-24 22:17, Jonathan Wilkes > wrote: > > > > > > I'd love to see an example of this in action. > Just from your > > description I'm wondering why you wouldn't do the fade > from inside > > the abstraction, and just delay destroying it until > the fade out has > > finished. > > ever tried to delay destroying an object? With mouse and cut messages, yes. With your objects, no. What happens? > i'm mainly talking about objects that get automatically > recreated by Pd > (not where i just chose to remove the object because i > don't like it any > more) > > > > > Rumors can only start when people don't choose their > words carefully. > > > > you are very optimistic. > at least i would rephrase to: "Rumors start because people > cannot choose > their words carefully." > > >> > >> as a matter of fact, i think [loadbang] has a bad > naming as > >> well. > > > > But unless you have some extraordinarily clear name in > > > mind as a replacement that outweighs the problems of > replacing an object > > i'm not suggesting to replace the name [loadbang]. > > > that is currently Max compatible and has a startup > flag with its name in > > it (not to mention however many people's patches that > depend upon it), > > there's not much to be done about it. > > > > Hm, looking at Max's docs I see [loadbang] sends out a > bang on double > > click. That's pretty nifty! > > > > i think it's pretty daft, as a [loadbang] is a way to > automate things > without user interaction whereas double clicking only makes > sense in > user interaction. Both Max and Pd's [loadbang] objects are a way to automate things without user interaction-- at _load_ time. Unless there is currently a way to imagine a patch into existence, one has to build a patch through interaction with Pd (or build the patch that dynamically builds a patch). In the course of doing so one probably wants to test that particular object chain. In Pd, you add an extra [bng] and connect it to whatever the [loadbang] connects to (or use the File->Message window but that takes longer and triggers any other [loadbang] in the patch). In Max, you add nothing-- you just double-click [loadbang]. It takes less time to add nothing than it does to add something, so in Max you save time when testing your [loadbang] patch. I know it's a small amount of effort saved, but small amounts of effort start to add up over time, like [t b 0], having anchors to resize GUI objects with the mouse (like [entry]), etc. > anyhow, if you think it's really missing roll your own (or > use the attached) It's certainly missing, in the sense of, "If it were there, I would certainly use it." But given the difficulty of just advocating for [initbang], which has been around for years and (I find) necessary, I'm not sure I want to push for or code an addition to [loadbang] that merely adds a convenience. Also, if you roll too many of your own in Pd, you end up doing so at the expense of portability. I don't want to send a library of my hacks to standard objects with every patch I show to someone else. -Jonathan > > > > fgmadr > IOhannes > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
