On Dec 3, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> Now that I think about it, it would also work to have each call open >> an instance of a patch within one constantly running Pd process. >> Then when the call is dropped, that patch instance would close. For >> this to work well, we'd need to add the ability for a patch to close >> itself programmatically (currently, when a patch sends menuclose to >> itself, Pd crashes :( ) > > Yes, that would certainly be the ideal way to do it. In fact, > instead of > messing around with multiple Pd processes, I would much rather just > help solve > whatever the problem is that causes this not to work. > > Are there any existing bug reports or any previous discussions > about the problem?
The discussion on this bug talks about the issue, which also happens when you send a "clear" message to a patch from within that patch. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php? func=detail&aid=1518030&group_id=55736&atid=478070 I agree with sistisette on this discussion, but it's not a cut and dry issue, as you can probably see :). For me, unless someone demonstrates the harm in adding the possibility for deleting a chunk of a tree that is executing (I mean besides the crash ;), then I think it should be possible, especially since it would mean that patches could close themselves, which is a very useful thing. .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
