On 02/18/2017 05:38 AM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote: > > If you had a print inside the abstraction it would print. If you > dynamically create objects, chances are you will first dynamically > create the abstraction which can initialize itself using a loadbang, > then the print, then the connection. In this respect its behavior is > synonymous to, for example [f 42] which initializes itself to 42 but > does not output anything until asked to do so. This way initialization > of individual abstractions is handled gracefully, whereas the example > you are suggesting would require manual interaction regardless whether > you are using an abstraction foo or an [f 42]. In other words, > pd-l2ork/purr-data's loadbang implementation allows for parity between > built-in objects and abstractions.
the thing is, that pd-vanilla's [loadbang] has slightly different semantics: it allows you to implement [init 666] as an abstraction (rather than just only [f 42]). you are of course free to change the semantics of any built in object. however, it comes at the cost of deliberatly breaking compatibility. gfmards IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
