<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Miller Puckette <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:msp@ucsd.edu" target="_blank">msp@ucsd.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Here's a guess - I think each copy of the abstraction binds itself to<br>
a symbol, "pd-<name>". Binding is fast bt unbinding is linear-time in the<br>
number of things bound to the symbol... ouch.<br>
<br>
There's a good reason to bind toplevels and named sub-patches to ther names,<br>
but I think there's little reason to do it for abstractions - perhaps I can<br>
take this out, but I'd have to leave it as an option for compatibility (ouch!)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Miller</font></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Miller,<br><br></div><div>Just very generally BTW:<br></div><div>Do you mean binary compatibility or patch compatibility?<br></div><div>Either way, what are your thoughts about the possibility of a future Pd-1.0 which would break (some kind of) compatibility for the sake of revolutionary progress?<br>
<br></div><div>András<br></div></div></div></div>