When and if such patch is implemented please do let us know as I would like to implement it in pd-l2ork as well.
Best wishes, Ico On Aug 9, 2013 8:03 PM, "Miller Puckette" <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, if ia user really wants 32K receives of the same name, (s)he can have > them - but most people won't want to do that. In contrast, you can't have > 32K copies of an abstraction without hitting this problem - and the > business > of binding patches to names is only rarely actually used. So (I'm now > thinking) > Pd should make it easy to defeat that useless behavior. > > cheers > M > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:11:02PM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>[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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [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 >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
