[PD-dev] initbang and friends WAS: run-up to release 0.43

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at
Fri Aug 20 20:02:08 CEST 2010

On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:42 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> On 08/20/2010 12:37 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> While I can't really comment on the implementation since i haven't
>> reviewed it in depth, I can say that I am a fan of having the  
>> interface
>> be a series of *bang objects over having a [loadbang] with  
>> arguments.  I
>> think its nice, simple, and clear.  Then we also can have things like
>> [propertybang] for implementing Properties panels in abstractions.
> ahm, what is wrong with the [propertybang] as found in iemguts?
> and how would the inclusion of [initbang] be related to this?
> or is it just a general comment on why you (and me :-)) prefer a  
> number
> of *bang objects over e.g. [loadbang close]
> as for the implementation: i don't care if it was implemented  
> differently.
> iirc, i tried to follow the implementation style as closely as that of
> the rest of Pd ;-)

I'm saying I like the interface of having a suite of objects called  
*bang rather than [loadbang close], etc.  it makes them super easy to  
use and remember.


>> Also, I've used [initbang] some in Pd-extended and so far it works  
>> well.
>> [closebang] is tricky because the patch is being deleted when its
>> triggered.
> well yes, that's the idea of [closebang], no?
> i don't really understand what is tricky about it.

Well, it doesn't really seem to work.  Or at least the [closebang] in  
Pd-extended doesn't seem to ever output the bang.


> mfdsdfg
> IOhannes
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> QmsAoKAjmfYdF4G/36w/Sch6vsB01YKU
> =3f+6
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



More information about the Pd-dev mailing list