<p dir="ltr">When and if such patch is implemented please do let us know as I would like to implement it in pd-l2ork as well.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Best wishes,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Ico</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 9, 2013 8:03 PM, "Miller Puckette" <<a href="mailto:msp@ucsd.edu">msp@ucsd.edu</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Well, if ia user really wants 32K receives of the same name, (s)he can have<br>
them - but most people won't want to do that. In contrast, you can't have<br>
32K copies of an abstraction without hitting this problem - and the business<br>
of binding patches to names is only rarely actually used. So (I'm now thinking)<br>
Pd should make it easy to defeat that useless behavior.<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
M<br>
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:11:02PM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:<br>
> On 08/09/2013 04:31 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:<br>
> >Or... just limit the number of canvases that can bind themselves to a single<br>
> >symbol to a reasonable number (5 or so, settable by flag for back-compatibility<br>
> >if anyone cares).<br>
><br>
> What happens to Claude's test if you a) patch Pd to stop binding<br>
> pd-abstractionName.pd, and b) put a [receive pd-abstractionName.pd]<br>
> inside the abstraction that's getting massively replicated?<br>
><br>
> I'd hypothesize that you end up with the same or closely similar problem,<br>
> no?<br>
><br>
> If so then messing with the abstraction name binding risks introducing<br>
> bugs or breaking some strange but interesting patches, and doesn't<br>
> solve the larger problem which becomes anxiety about [s]/[r] pairs or<br>
> any other nonlocal connection objects inside abstractions.<br>
><br>
> -Jonathan<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> >cheers<br>
> >M<br>
> ><br>
> >On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:51:30PM +0100, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:<br>
> >>On 09/08/13 19:42, Miller Puckette wrote:<br>
> >>>There still could be situations where an abstraction has a sub-patch ("pd foo"<br>
> >>>for instance) - I'm not clear as to whether those namings should be supressed<br>
> >>>as well. It seems like a tricky problem - lots of people seem to use<br>
> >>>abstractions with only one instance and might be depending on the bindings.<br>
> >>Maybe the best fix would be to make pd_unbind() constant time (perhaps<br>
> >>by storing bindings in a doubly-linked list instead of a singly-linked<br>
> >>list) and be done with it, instead of hacking workarounds..<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >>Claude<br>
> >>--<br>
> >><a href="http://mathr.co.uk" target="_blank">http://mathr.co.uk</a><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >>_______________________________________________<br>
> >><a href="mailto:Pd-list@iem.at">Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>
> >>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> ><a href="mailto:Pd-list@iem.at">Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>
> >UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> <a href="mailto:Pd-list@iem.at">Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<a href="mailto:Pd-list@iem.at">Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
</blockquote></div>