On 08/09/2013 04:31 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
Or... just limit the number of canvases that can bind themselves to a single
symbol to a reasonable number (5 or so, settable by flag for back-compatibility
if anyone cares).
What happens to Claude's test if you a) patch Pd to stop binding
pd-abstractionName.pd, and b) put a [receive pd-abstractionName.pd]
inside the abstraction that's getting massively replicated?
I'd hypothesize that you end up with the same or closely similar problem,
no?
If so then messing with the abstraction name binding risks introducing
bugs or breaking some strange but interesting patches, and doesn't
solve the larger problem which becomes anxiety about [s]/[r] pairs or
any other nonlocal connection objects inside abstractions.
-Jonathan
cheers
M
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:51:30PM +0100, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
On 09/08/13 19:42, Miller Puckette wrote:
There still could be situations where an abstraction has a sub-patch ("pd foo"
for instance) - I'm not clear as to whether those namings should be supressed
as well. It seems like a tricky problem - lots of people seem to use
abstractions with only one instance and might be depending on the bindings.
Maybe the best fix would be to make pd_unbind() constant time (perhaps
by storing bindings in a doubly-linked list instead of a singly-linked
list) and be done with it, instead of hacking workarounds..
Claude
--
http://mathr.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
