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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ->

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

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

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

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

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

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 -

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

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?)

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 >

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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 ___

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

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

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

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

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

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