----- Original Message ----- > From: IOhannes m zmölnig <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 5:18 PM > Subject: Re: [PD] weird behavior with dynamically created abstractions (sound > doesn't work) > > 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.
Then let's describe it as a bug when newcomers run into these predictable problems from the buggy behavior, and not as a feature that helps the user handle dsp toggling the "right" way when doing dynamic patching. > > 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. That's not my assumption. I'm not petitioning for changing Pd's dynamic patching system-- I don't know the details about how it works internally. But virtually no one uses [loadbangs] in the way described in the hypothetical examples used to rationalize why it's desirable for the dynamic patching system to work the way it does. That should be a good indicator that this imaginary library of abstractions which exists only in list responses about dynamic patching should be removed and replaced with a simple statement that "this inconsistent behavior is entrenched in Pd and cannot simply be changed." (If that is indeed the case.) -Jonathan > > 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 > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
