[PD-dev] popup,...

[B. Bogart]

Hi Johannes,

I will not have a chance to look at your changes until I get back from
vacation and start getting my new linux machine going.

Comments inline.

IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> hi ben, hi list
>
> i just checked your [popup], like it and have submitted several (imo)
> improvements to the CVS.
> namely:
> - no restriction for max# of "options"; this might be not very
> interesting (as on my machine i can only display 40 options at one time,
> so 100 seems to be sufficient anyhow) BUT i added additionally checks
> whether the max# has been exceeded; this keeps [popup] from segfaulting
> when you have more than 100 options

This sounds good to me. Are you doing some dynamic memory allocation to
make this work?

> - using a mixture of user-defined and default values if you provide less
> than 5 arguments (i thought that 5 args are a bit much to remember)

Any type checking to guess what arguments are what? 5 Arguments is
indeed a lot. I'm actually hoping that one day PD will have a nice GUI
API that includes the iemgui (or something similar) "inspector" window
to change properties (like font, bg and fg colour etc..)

> - removed the "loadbang"-constraint (you can now add options and select
> entries before the object has been drawn the 1st time)

Ah, how did you make this work? When I tried to send a loadbang to set a
value it would always segfault. :( I could not figure out why and so
added the funny bang thing, yes this is an ugly hack. Thanks a lot for
fixing that, indeed beyond my debugging skill!

> since i only tested it on linux, it would be great if somebody could
> tell me what i've broken...

I'll get on it as soon as a can... busy week.

>
> but i have some questions:
> - why are there 2 inlets ? i noticed you uncommented the
> class_addsymbol()-method, so it seems like there is some reason for not
> using the 1st inlet for both numeric and symbolic selection of elements.

This is a design idea, the left side is "float" space and the right side
is "symbol" space. I thought two inlets made things more visual sense
when there are two outlets. So no there is no technical reason here,
aesthetic.

> - even more puzzling: why are there 2 outlets ?
> for clarification, i don't have any problems with separate outlets for
> typfixed outlets (1 for numeric indices and 1 for symbolic names), but
> you are using the first outlet for 2 types (float vs. bang) so you
> somehow need a route to segregate those types.
> i would've suggested using either 1 outlet (with either ("bang" and
> "float" and "symbol") or ("bang" and "list")

As said above the bang is a hack and was not part of the original
design. I don't want it! So your right that the idea was to have a
separate float only and symbol only outlets.

> since now the "loadbang" seems to work, could the "bang" output be
> removed ? (i find it rather annoying that everytime i switch console
> (this is: unhide the window), a bang is emitted.

yes yes yes, let me test to make sure it works on my machines.

>
> but i guess, this would break a lot of patches....

Hmmmm, maybe not so many. The suggest "route" usage would mean the lack
of a bang would be ignored. What would be missing is the signal to set
the value in some "loadbang" cases. Now is probably better to change
this than later! I think since so few people complained about the
load-bang segfault that most people are not using popup with default
values.

Thanks for the contributions Johannes! :)

B>

>
>
> mfg.as.dr
> IOhannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20050608/f464b5e1/attachment.pgp>