Hi,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:00:22PM -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Tell me what's wrong with the pd-msg docs, and what needs improvement to
achieve the standard of official docs and I'll make those changes.
I already wrote what's wrong. Now I have committed an updated loadbang example
patch
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Frank Barknecht wrote:
We all know, that dynamic patching, while very useful, still is
considered exploiting internal implementation details, and has never
been encouraged nor documented by its author, Miller.
Yet if Miller changed internals so that dynamic patching
I just skimmed your changes, but I think that#39;s a great addition to the
docs.
-Jonathan
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM +, Pedro Lopes wrote:
yes, this is known.
By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already?
As Cyrille wrote, it's not a bug, but a feature: Usually when you use an
abstraction in your patch and you load that patch, everything inside of that
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org wrote:
From: Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org
Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
To: pd-list@iem.at
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:50 AM
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM
+, Pedro Lopes wrote
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org wrote:
From: Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org
Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
To: pd-list@iem.at
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:50 AM
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM
, 21 Feb 2011 12:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org wrote:
From: Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org
Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
To: pd-list@iem.at
Date: Monday
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Andy Farnell padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
From: Andy Farnell padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
To: Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-list@iem.at, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org
Date: Monday
anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad.
I don't. I know that you are probably just referring to the fact that it
affects performance and recomputes the DSP graph. But that would be the same
to call a gamedev and say: don't create assets dynamically, create them all
at game
On 02/19/2011 08:49 PM, Pedro Lopes wrote:
yes, this is known.
By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already?
it is a feature, not a bug.
please consult the mailing list archives for why it makes sense for
loadbang to behave like it does.
fgadmr
IOhannes
signature.asc
Description:
Yeah, if its the logical behaviour of the class: ok. As i said,
comment withdrawn.
I agree with Mathieu, I'll just use one of the unsupported stuff out there.
2011/2/20 IOhannes zmölnig zmoel...@iem.at
On 02/19/2011 08:49 PM, Pedro Lopes wrote:
yes, this is known.
By known you mean.. Is it
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Pedro Lopes wrote:
Yeah, if its the logical behaviour of the class: ok. As i said,
comment withdrawn.
There's a [loadbang] class of objects, but we're talking about a
collection of methods all named loadbang : one in class [loadbang], one
in class canvas ([pd],
is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a
dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will
create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print
loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang.
--
John
#N canvas
I've tested you patch, happens here too.
But I'm no expert in this behavior. :)
p.s.: The help patch on loadbang states that a bang is sent when the patch
is loaded. Is it a semantic issue? Patch vs. abstraction? or merely a
problem.. 'Cause initbang bangs.
2011/2/19 John Harrison
hello,
yes, this is known.
you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your
exemple.
(don't know about initbang, i don't use it)
c
Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit :
is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a
dynamically
yes, this is known.
By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already?
When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't
they be documented inside the help patches?
It helps a lot those getting inside pd.
Best,
pedro
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry
Cyrille I just tried your solution and the problem is that all objects
sharing the name of the dynamically-created object all get the loadbang
message.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Pedro Lopes pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt wrote:
yes, this is known.
By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker
Le 19/02/2011 20:49, Pedro Lopes a écrit :
yes, this is known.
By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already?
no, it's not considered as a bug.
When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they
be documented inside the help patches?
dynamic patching is
Le 19/02/2011 20:58, John Harrison a écrit :
Cyrille I just tried your solution and the problem is that all objects sharing
the name of the dynamically-created object all get the loadbang message.
yes.
you should create them all in the same time, and then send the loadbang.
if this is not
uhhh not officially supported sounds great.
Okay, didn't knew that position. Comment withdrawn.
Best,
Pedro
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:01 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net wrote:
Le 19/02/2011 20:49, Pedro Lopes a écrit :
yes, this is known.
By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Pedro Lopes wrote:
uhhh not officially supported sounds great.
Okay, didn't knew that position. Comment withdrawn.
Ah, btw, you have to know what official means in the pd world.
GUI classes outside of Pd are all using unofficial, unsupported APIs.
It's been like that
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, John Harrison wrote:
is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part
of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it
will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test
should print loadbang and initbang, but
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:07 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net wrote:
anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad.
imho, it really should be limited for patch creation.
Hi Cyrille, can you explain better your position please?
I have been using dynamic patching in real time a
23 matches
Mail list logo
