[PD-dev] [ pure-data-Bugs-1518030 ] subpatch clearing itself crashes Pd

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Frank Barknecht wrote:
> >> however, i don't think it is a valid assumption for pd itself.
> >> in this case, i would highly prefer an error-message to the console (an
> >> "exception") and no destruction at all.
> >> (since usually you have more complex settings when doing dynamic
> >> patching, e.g. [clear, obj 0 0 inlet, obj 0 100 outlet, connect 0 0 1 0( )
> > 
> > "clear" alone may be fine in this case, but I suppose things get hairy
> 
> obviously this is just the simplest example i was able to think of.
> what i was trying to illustrate is:
> i expect [clear, obj 0 0 foo( to clear the entire canvas and then to
> create an instance of [foo].
> using your "delay" message for the "clear", would first create the [foo]
> object and then delete the entire canvas (including [foo]).

Risking to appear as an advocate for it: As I understand Tim's
approach now, it could work a bit differently. The "clear" would set
the "deletable" flag in every object inside the canvas, but it would
not do the deletion immediatly. Then the "obj" messages could create
objects, which would not have the "deletable" flag set. After the full
message is executed, the flagged objects would be deleted, but the
unflagged objects could remain. Which in the end would be the same as
[clear, obj 0 0 foo(---[delay]---[s pd-sub]

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__