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

[Frank Barknecht]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:02:08PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:42 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> 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.
> 
> [initbang]
> [loadbang]
> [propertybang]
> [closebang]

The only issue I have with this is the difference between initbang and
loadbang. In several patches posted to this list in the past I observed,
that sometimes people tended to use initbang where a simple loadbang
would be sufficient, i.e. they were doing nothing that would actually
require initbang.(*) I assume this is because they actually didn't
know or understand the difference. 

That's where a loadbang object that somehow combined initbang into it
with an argument *may* be preferable. I don't see any reason to combine
load- and closebang (or propertybang, but I don't really know that. I
assume it will fire when Help->Properties is selected.)

(*) A typical example were abstractions using initbang because their
loadbang would not fire after dynamic patching. Here initbang is not the
correct solution, but a "loadbang"-message to the dynamic patching
canvas.

Ciao
-- 
Frank