I never thought about it - my original intent in -noloadbang was to allow one to open a patch that might be crashing Pd somehow because of a loadbang action (such as a batch process that automatically exits after a fixed time).
I'm not sure what the correct behavior should be. cheers Miller On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:47:51PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > i just discovered, that a [loadbang] can trigger even if Pd is started > with "-noloadbang". > > 1.) create an abstraction myloadbang.pd > [loadbang] > | > [print $0-loadbanged] > > 2.) create a patch that contains (only) a [myloadbang] object, save it > as "myloadbang-test.pd" > > 3.) start Pd with "pd -noloadbang myloadbang-test.pd" > > 3a.) observe that the loadbang is suppressed (as there is no > "1004-loadbanged: bang" printout) > > 4.) in the myloadbang-test.pd patch, create a new instance of [myloadbang]. > > 4a) observe that the instance does get loadbanged (the Pd-console shows > "1005-loadbanged: bang") > > is this intended behaviour? (I don't have a string opinion either way; > but i wonder...). > > gfmasdr > IOhannes > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
