Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-10-22 19:52 GMT-02:00 Miller Puckette :

> I've been thinking about some sort of such extention of loadbang - also
> to allow you to specify the message, as in "loadbang 5"  - I think that
> would

get a lot of use.


It would certainly do! There is already an external for this though, it is
[cyclone/loadmess], I know I use it all the time. It's one of the new ones
we included in cyclone 0.3

But I don't have a solid sense of what the design should
> be (and am always afraid of implementing something before I understand all
> the issues; if I do something stupid then its there forever :)
>

The thing about connecting [loadbang] to a message is that you can at least
click the message on the patch while you're working on it to test things.
That's also the case with a plain loadbang, but you can just also connect a
bang GUI. The thing is that it'd be more annoying to deal with that if you
had a message. The way [loadmess] works is that you can just click on it
and it sends the message as well. I like that idea and it's easy to
implement it in Pd, and it could be useful for a plain [loadbang] as well.

As long as loading messages go, what I don't like about [cyclone/loadmess]
is that you can't give it a comma and send more than one message at once.
That would be cool and I was even considering creating another external so
it could do that.


2017-10-22 16:44 GMT-02:00 Dan Wilcox :

> Or [loadbang] could have a second outlet for init bangs...
>

that actually sounds better and cleaner, and totally compatible with
Miller's idea of allowing it to send messages as well. I don't see how that
would raise any issue.

cheers
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Miller Puckette]

I've been thinking about some sort of such extention of loadbang - also
to allow you to specify the message, as in "loadbang 5" - I think that would
get a lot of use.  But I don't have a solid sense of what the design should
be (and am always afraid of implementing something before I understand all
the issues; if I do something stupid then its there forever :)

Miller

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 08:44:25PM +0200, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> Or [loadbang] could have a second outlet for init bangs...
> 
> > On Oct 22, 2017, at 7:35 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
> > 
> > I can think of an easier solution that doesn't even require another Pd
> > object: [loadbang] could take a non zero argument to turn it into
> > [initbang]. That'd be so easy to implement that even I could do it... (it's
> > just action = LB_INIT instead of LB_LOAD). This would also be backwards
> > compatible, of course. I could even go ahead and make a PR for that.
> 
> 
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika 
> danomatika.com 
> robotcowboy.com 
> 
> 
> 

> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Dan Wilcox]

Or [loadbang] could have a second outlet for init bangs...

> On Oct 22, 2017, at 7:35 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> I can think of an easier solution that doesn't even require another Pd
> object: [loadbang] could take a non zero argument to turn it into
> [initbang]. That'd be so easy to implement that even I could do it... (it's
> just action = LB_INIT instead of LB_LOAD). This would also be backwards
> compatible, of course. I could even go ahead and make a PR for that.


Dan Wilcox
@danomatika 
danomatika.com 
robotcowboy.com 



___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 10/22/2017 07:35 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Am I close?

yes.
thank you.

gfmsard
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

Ok, you have a good point and now I seem to finally understand what you
mean.

It's not that this has been argued over and over only to get strong
rejections as I was assuming. Seems I got confused yet again.

Apparently, the deal is that this has been long requested over and over,
but all that ever came out of this was this possibility to have it as an
external for Pd. Which is to say there was plenty awareness that people
wanted it, but, nonetheless, a decision has been made by Miller and this is
probably all we'll ever get. Am I close?

2017-10-21 5:08 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :

>
> 1.5 years ago (see the post from miller that alex linked to) a decision
> was made, which was greeted with an "EVERYONE WINS" by the community
> (and i don't remember anybody objecting).
>
> so what has changed in the last 20 months?
>

 I don't think much has changed. But by that I mean a lot of people still
seem to hope for that functionality in Vanilla and are still requesting for
it. Yes making it possible for externals was obviously a well received step
towards, unlikely subject to any objection by anybody, but I don't think
that one or another person greeting "Yeah! Awesome" reflects the
satisfaction of the whole community, or an agreement that actually having
this in Vanilla from then on and forever would be crazy. Actually I can't
see why there'd be much objection for not having this in Vanilla. Thus,
still here we are asking for further solutions.

Ok, seems Miller has concerns. And I've already found my own solution
(writting my own external), so I can let it go easily. Though I'm really
curious and would like at least an explanation just to understand the issue.

2017-10-22 12:24 GMT-02:00 Dan Wilcox :

> Maybe a further solution would be to have an optional [initbang] (or
> something similarly named) in the core "extra" externals which simply wraps
> the interface provided within vanilla and is overridable and/or optional
> when compiling.
>

I can think of an easier solution that doesn't even require another Pd
object: [loadbang] could take a non zero argument to turn it into
[initbang]. That'd be so easy to implement that even I could do it... (it's
just action = LB_INIT instead of LB_LOAD). This would also be backwards
compatible, of course. I could even go ahead and make a PR for that.

cheers
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Dan Wilcox]

Maybe a further solution would be to have an optional [initbang] (or something 
similarly named) in the core "extra" externals which simply wraps the interface 
provided within vanilla and is overridable and/or optional when compiling.

> On Oct 21, 2017, at 12:00 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> since then the issue was raised again and again.
> 1.5 years ago (see the post from miller that alex linked to) a decision
> was made, which was greeted with an "EVERYONE WINS" by the community
> (and i don't remember anybody objecting).


Dan Wilcox
@danomatika 
danomatika.com 
robotcowboy.com 



___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 10/20/2017 10:19 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> Though I mostly agree with you, I disagree with the notion that raising
> the same thing several times is necessarily a bad thing. I'm living in
> a country where the people directly vote about some decisions. We would
> live in medieval times still - so to speak - if we hadn't voted about
> the same thing many times. 10 years later, the (Pd-) world might have
> changed a bit and suddenly implementing [initbang] in Pd-vanilla is
> considered nice and pretty.. How can you know?

no sorry, that's not how it works.

while i totally agree on the general terms, this doesn't apply to the
current issue.

the initbang discussion has *started* >10 years ago (for what it is
worth: this is when I first implemented it).
since then the issue was raised again and again.
1.5 years ago (see the post from miller that alex linked to) a decision
was made, which was greeted with an "EVERYONE WINS" by the community
(and i don't remember anybody objecting).

so what has changed in the last 20 months?


of course, we are living in a free world and you are free to raise your
concerns about any decision, even it has reached consensus a minute ago.
and if others don't want to get through all this again and again, they
free to blacklist your address.
though this is probably counterproductive on the long run.

gfadsr
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Matt Davey]

Ok then, cos i would also like vanilla initbang, and just to stir the
hornets nest...

Why CAN'T it be done in vanilla?
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

typo

I just think this could be an important request to be *reissued*,

2017-10-21 0:38 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres :

> ok, browsing the pd list archive for some data on "this has been discussed
> over and over", what I found was many discussions about initbang, making
> the external work in vanilla, things like that, but no real discussion on
> why not having it in vanilla.
>
> I can see, from a couple of years ago, proposals for initbang in vanilla,
> but No actual development on the matter (namely, Alexandros Drymonitis and
> Dan Wilcox - source
> )
>
> I also see a thread opened by jonathan wilkens in 2010, commenting on a
> patch to add initbang/colsebang to vanilla from 2006 (ID: 1544041),
> asking "what's the story on it?", saying that he's seen "*repeated  hopes
> from various developers that these objects be included as internal objects
> in pd*." - but this thread also had no feedback/conclusion - source
> 
>
> Going back earlier, I see a message from 2008, where Matt Barber asks if
> initbang is on vanilla and IOhannes replies "no, and I'm not sure why",
> after that Matt Barbour "claims for its inclusion to, again, no response at
> all - source
> 
>
> And this, about 10 years ago, is when gave up digging deep through the
> mail archive trying to find a clear rejection why initbang should not be
> added to Vanilla. Ok, I might have missed something, but I did my best, and
> what I have makes me challenge this notion that this has been discussed and
> denied over and over. By the way, I have to say it's not the first time I
> hear something has been fully discussed on the mail list, but I actually do
> not find a clear closure on the matter...
>
> I can ask again if someone had a source or fill me in on the veredict.
> I've also seen a same discussion come up, but when I respond to it, I give
> the source and what came out of that.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna reissue an argument that has been going
> on and on. And I don't wanna raise the same case once more and argue in
> favor of it when it has been turned out many times. It's just that I don't
> see it, can't find it. On the contrary, I found several requests in over
> many years that simply did not get real attention... but if there's in fact
> a clear and strong rejection, I don't really care, I won't mind, I'll find
> me another solution even if it involves making my own external - which is
> to say this is not a selfish motivation, I just think this could be an
> important request to be, as it really seems like a wish from many members
> of this community.
>
> cheers
>
> 2017-10-20 21:17 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres :
>
>> 2017-10-20 18:19 GMT-02:00 Roman Haefeli :
>>
>>>
>>> Though I mostly agree with you, I disagree with the notion that raising
>>> the same thing several times is necessarily a bad thing. I'm living in
>>> a country where the people directly vote about some decisions. We would
>>> live in medieval times still - so to speak - if we hadn't voted about
>>> the same thing many times. 10 years later, the (Pd-) world might have
>>> changed a bit and suddenly implementing [initbang] in Pd-vanilla is
>>> considered nice and pretty.. How can you know?
>>>
>>
>> That was *exactly* what I was thinking, thank you for pointing that out
>> so I can give you a +1
>>
>> And yeah, 10 years ago was sorta ages ago for Pd, many things have
>> happened, like the demise of Pd Extended. There's this libpd thing and the
>> need for it to be more self sufficient. And this feels like such a basic
>> core functionality that I really wonder why not to have it somehow. So I
>> really wonder if the reasoning from 10 years ago is still as pertinent now
>> for the community as whole.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>
>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

ok, browsing the pd list archive for some data on "this has been discussed
over and over", what I found was many discussions about initbang, making
the external work in vanilla, things like that, but no real discussion on
why not having it in vanilla.

I can see, from a couple of years ago, proposals for initbang in vanilla,
but No actual development on the matter (namely, Alexandros Drymonitis and
Dan Wilcox - source
)

I also see a thread opened by jonathan wilkens in 2010, commenting on a
patch to add initbang/colsebang to vanilla from 2006 (ID: 1544041), asking
"what's the story on it?", saying that he's seen "*repeated  hopes from
various developers that these objects be included as internal objects in pd*."
- but this thread also had no feedback/conclusion - source


Going back earlier, I see a message from 2008, where Matt Barber asks if
initbang is on vanilla and IOhannes replies "no, and I'm not sure why",
after that Matt Barbour "claims for its inclusion to, again, no response at
all - source


And this, about 10 years ago, is when gave up digging deep through the mail
archive trying to find a clear rejection why initbang should not be added
to Vanilla. Ok, I might have missed something, but I did my best, and what
I have makes me challenge this notion that this has been discussed and
denied over and over. By the way, I have to say it's not the first time I
hear something has been fully discussed on the mail list, but I actually do
not find a clear closure on the matter...

I can ask again if someone had a source or fill me in on the veredict. I've
also seen a same discussion come up, but when I respond to it, I give the
source and what came out of that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna reissue an argument that has been going
on and on. And I don't wanna raise the same case once more and argue in
favor of it when it has been turned out many times. It's just that I don't
see it, can't find it. On the contrary, I found several requests in over
many years that simply did not get real attention... but if there's in fact
a clear and strong rejection, I don't really care, I won't mind, I'll find
me another solution even if it involves making my own external - which is
to say this is not a selfish motivation, I just think this could be an
important request to be, as it really seems like a wish from many members
of this community.

cheers

2017-10-20 21:17 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres :

> 2017-10-20 18:19 GMT-02:00 Roman Haefeli :
>
>>
>> Though I mostly agree with you, I disagree with the notion that raising
>> the same thing several times is necessarily a bad thing. I'm living in
>> a country where the people directly vote about some decisions. We would
>> live in medieval times still - so to speak - if we hadn't voted about
>> the same thing many times. 10 years later, the (Pd-) world might have
>> changed a bit and suddenly implementing [initbang] in Pd-vanilla is
>> considered nice and pretty.. How can you know?
>>
>
> That was *exactly* what I was thinking, thank you for pointing that out
> so I can give you a +1
>
> And yeah, 10 years ago was sorta ages ago for Pd, many things have
> happened, like the demise of Pd Extended. There's this libpd thing and the
> need for it to be more self sufficient. And this feels like such a basic
> core functionality that I really wonder why not to have it somehow. So I
> really wonder if the reasoning from 10 years ago is still as pertinent now
> for the community as whole.
>
> cheers
>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-10-20 18:19 GMT-02:00 Roman Haefeli :

>
> Though I mostly agree with you, I disagree with the notion that raising
> the same thing several times is necessarily a bad thing. I'm living in
> a country where the people directly vote about some decisions. We would
> live in medieval times still - so to speak - if we hadn't voted about
> the same thing many times. 10 years later, the (Pd-) world might have
> changed a bit and suddenly implementing [initbang] in Pd-vanilla is
> considered nice and pretty.. How can you know?
>

That was *exactly* what I was thinking, thank you for pointing that out so
I can give you a +1

And yeah, 10 years ago was sorta ages ago for Pd, many things have
happened, like the demise of Pd Extended. There's this libpd thing and the
need for it to be more self sufficient. And this feels like such a basic
core functionality that I really wonder why not to have it somehow. So I
really wonder if the reasoning from 10 years ago is still as pertinent now
for the community as whole.

cheers
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-10-19 13:58 GMT-02:00 Claude Heiland-Allen :

> On 19/10/17 16:23, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> > On 10/19/2017 03:20 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> >> If not, since I do not want dependancies to other external libraries,
>
> Why?
>

Why not? I mean, sorry, but I'm not comfortable or happy getting into a
kind of discussion on where I have to defend personal preferences and ideas
that I don't really care to defend if others disagree. But if you have
considerations against it, I'm happy to hear, though I reserve myself the
right to make up my own mind.

thanks
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-10-19 13:23 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :

> your point currently is mainly that you don't like the particular
> implementation of it)
>

Not sure if I get what you mean by me not liking the "particular
implementation of it". I'd just say my point is that I believe this
functionality is worth having in vanilla. Though I know now I'm late on
this discussion and, apparently, it has been decided it should not have
such functionality. Not to argue about it, but I'd appreciate if anyone
would tell me the considerations behind this decision.

2017-10-19 12:45 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes :

>
> There were many requests to include it in Pd Vanilla. Check
>
> the mailing list archives.
>

Or I'll do that and see what I can find if no one wants to tell me :)

thanks
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Christof Ressi]

I'm not sure if there's much to "steal" in the case of [initbang] (I don't like 
the word BTW. in the open source world you shouldn't have to "steal" things). 
but I'm wondering: how can one reimplement [initbang] and publish it under a 
different, more permissive license? basically it's just an API call and a 
version check... there's not much to do differently. shall [initbang] therefore 
always be GPL?


> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2017 um 17:23 Uhr
> Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig" 
> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an 
> object with dynamic patching?)
>
> On 10/19/2017 03:20 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > Well, I guess this is now turning into a request to bring such
> > functionalities to vanilla. My point being that it'd be of vital importance
> > if we want Pd Vanilla to have any real functionality of providing ways to
> > program powerful external abstractions.
> 
> yawn.
> sorry, but you are 10 years late. we've had this discussion. multiple
> times. the conclusion was that Pd now provides the infrastucture to
> implement [initbang] as an external.
> personally, i think this is good enough, and most likely all we will
> ever get.
> i'm pretty tired of issues being re-raised over more than a decade.
> (it obviously show that there is interest in the problem. but we now do
> have a solution and your point currently is mainly that you don't like
> the particula implementation of it)
> 
> > 
> > If not, since I do not want dependancies to other external libraries, the
> > only way would be to "steal" it for my library, huh? What are the ethics on
> > that?
> 
> (you probably deserve eternal damnation for such a thing.)
> most likely you will discover another issue that has been neatly solved
> in iemguts in a week or two. and steal that.
> and then you discover that iemguts hsa other nifty things.
> and just steal all of them, until you have stolen it all. just for the
> sake of "not having a dependency".
> 
> apart from that, iemguts is licensed under the GPL-2+.
> everybody is free to use it under this license (but note, that e.g. ELSE
> is currently not compatible with GPL)
> 
> gfmadsr
> IOhannes
> 
> 
> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>

___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Claude Heiland-Allen]

On 19/10/17 16:23, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 10/19/2017 03:20 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
>> If not, since I do not want dependancies to other external libraries, 

Why?

>> the
>> only way would be to "steal" it for my library, huh? What are the ethics on
>> that?
> 
> (you probably deserve eternal damnation for such a thing.)
> most likely you will discover another issue that has been neatly solved
> in iemguts in a week or two. and steal that.
> and then you discover that iemguts hsa other nifty things.
> and just steal all of them, until you have stolen it all. just for the
> sake of "not having a dependency".

And then original upstream iemguts gets some new bugfixes, and your copy
is still buggy.

> apart from that, iemguts is licensed under the GPL-2+.
> everybody is free to use it under this license (but note, that e.g. ELSE
> is currently not compatible with GPL)

Important point.


Claude
-- 
https://mathr.co.uk

___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 10/19/2017 03:20 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Well, I guess this is now turning into a request to bring such
> functionalities to vanilla. My point being that it'd be of vital importance
> if we want Pd Vanilla to have any real functionality of providing ways to
> program powerful external abstractions.

yawn.
sorry, but you are 10 years late. we've had this discussion. multiple
times. the conclusion was that Pd now provides the infrastucture to
implement [initbang] as an external.
personally, i think this is good enough, and most likely all we will
ever get.
i'm pretty tired of issues being re-raised over more than a decade.
(it obviously show that there is interest in the problem. but we now do
have a solution and your point currently is mainly that you don't like
the particula implementation of it)

> 
> If not, since I do not want dependancies to other external libraries, the
> only way would be to "steal" it for my library, huh? What are the ethics on
> that?

(you probably deserve eternal damnation for such a thing.)
most likely you will discover another issue that has been neatly solved
in iemguts in a week or two. and steal that.
and then you discover that iemguts hsa other nifty things.
and just steal all of them, until you have stolen it all. just for the
sake of "not having a dependency".

apart from that, iemguts is licensed under the GPL-2+.
everybody is free to use it under this license (but note, that e.g. ELSE
is currently not compatible with GPL)

gfmadsr
IOhannes




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list]

> I see... somehow I got terribly confused and thought there was a 

> discussion to include it in vanilla, which would make sense to me.

There were many requests to include it in Pd Vanilla. Check 

the mailing list archives.

-Jonathan

___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

I see... somehow I got terribly confused and thought there was a discussion
to include it in vanilla, which would make sense to me. Maybe it was the
conversation about meeting a "proper design" of initbang/closebang that led
me to think that was on the table. Sorry for the confusion.

Well, I guess this is now turning into a request to bring such
functionalities to vanilla. My point being that it'd be of vital importance
if we want Pd Vanilla to have any real functionality of providing ways to
program powerful external abstractions.

If not, since I do not want dependancies to other external libraries, the
only way would be to "steal" it for my library, huh? What are the ethics on
that?

cheers



2017-10-19 5:43 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmoelnig :

> On 2017-10-19 06:19, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > And I ask, what came out of that? Is the jury still out?
>
> it has been implemented exactly as miller suggested:
>
> Pd will not include [initbang], but externals can (now) implement it.
> iemguts' already has an [initbang] that you can use.
>
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
>
>
> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
> listinfo/pd-list
>
>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2017-10-19 06:19, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> And I ask, what came out of that? Is the jury still out?

it has been implemented exactly as miller suggested:

Pd will not include [initbang], but externals can (now) implement it.
iemguts' already has an [initbang] that you can use.

fgmasdr
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

[PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

So, here's the deal of why I wanted to delete objects. My first idea was
actually to create a dynamic number of outlets, but that didn't work, cause
connections got lost. So I thought, well, maybe have a maximum number of
outlets and delete them, but that turned out to be very much uglier than I
thought and I haven't felt like trying yet.

But now I see there's this [initbang] external just for that... too bad
that, like I said, I cannot afford to have an external dependency...  And
then I've also seen there was a discussion of including [initbang]
functionality in Pd Vanilla, which I believe it's of vital importance if we
want Pd Vanilla to have any real functionality of providing powerful
externals.

I usually see many people here promoting this idea of "doing it yourself
with plainly vanilla", well, seems that many times that's really just hard
or impossible, so if we really want that, the [initbang] functionality
would be imperative. And, as long as we're at it, an easy message to pd for
deleting objects would be nice too.

So, I'm talking about what I found here:
https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2016-01/112868.html

And I ask, what came out of that? Is the jury still out?

Thanks


2017-10-18 11:22 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmoelnig :

> On 2017-10-18 15:15, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > 2017-10-18 3:35 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> >
> >> there is a reason, why a library like iemguts has an object like
> >> [canvasdelete]: you cannot do this otherwise.
> >
> >
> > But is there any particular reason not to have a simple message to Pd
> that
> > would delete an object? So one could be "in luck" and not have to rely on
> > externals or painful in the back hacks?
>
> iirc, there was a feature-request (cum implementation) on the sf tracker
> and it was turned down.
>
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
>
>
> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
> listinfo/pd-list
>
>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list