On 11/19/2012 09:07 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
That's not a reason to _suppress_ dsp with dynamic patching,
because the process would work exactly the same regardless.
i think this is simply a bug in Pd.
i do some live-coding using dynamic patching, and found that saving the
patch would re-compute the dsp-graph (i'm using abstractions, so saving
will eventually re-instantiate a number of abstractions, which triggers
a reavaulation of the dsp-graph; so i found that in practice this bug is
not such a big problem for _me_)
I've never seen an external in svn where [abstraction1] would rely on an
internal [loadbang] in order to send a message to its outlet.
well, very few *externals* (as in "atomic" (non-openable) objects
written mostly in C) do anything with loadbangs.
anyhow, even if we are talking only about abstractions, i think your
assumption, that just because [loadbang] is not used in the described
way anywhere in the Pd-svn, this behaviour could simply be changed is
not a valid one.
i'd very much like to see [initbang] and [closebang] in Pd-proper though.
fgmsdr
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
