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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Wed, 8/25/10, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:

> From: IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] initbang and friends WAS: run-up to release 0.43
> To: pd-dev at iem.at
> Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 9:13 AM
> On 2010-08-24 22:17, Jonathan Wilkes
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I'd love to see an example of this in action. 
> Just from your 
> > description I'm wondering why you wouldn't do the fade
> from inside 
> > the abstraction, and just delay destroying it until
> the fade out has 
> > finished.
> 
> ever tried to delay destroying an object?

With mouse and cut messages, yes.  With your objects, no.  What 
happens?

> i'm mainly talking about objects that get automatically
> recreated by Pd
> (not where i just chose to remove the object because i
> don't like it any
> more)
> 
> > 
> > Rumors can only start when people don't choose their
> words carefully.
> > 
> 
> you are very optimistic.
> at least i would rephrase to: "Rumors start because people
> cannot choose
> their words carefully."
> 
> >>
> >> as a matter of fact, i think [loadbang] has a bad
> naming as
> >> well.
> > 
> > But unless you have some extraordinarily clear name in
> 
> > mind as a replacement that outweighs the problems of
> replacing an object 
> 
> i'm not suggesting to replace the name [loadbang].
> 
> > that is currently Max compatible and has a startup
> flag with its name in 
> > it (not to mention however many people's patches that
> depend upon it), 
> > there's not much to be done about it.
> > 
> > Hm, looking at Max's docs I see [loadbang] sends out a
> bang on double 
> > click.  That's pretty nifty!
> > 
> 
> i think it's pretty daft, as a [loadbang] is a way to
> automate things
> without user interaction whereas double clicking only makes
> sense in
> user interaction.

Both Max and Pd's [loadbang] objects are a way to automate things 
without user interaction-- at _load_ time.  Unless there is currently a 
way to imagine a patch into existence, one has to build a patch through 
interaction with Pd (or build the patch that dynamically builds a 
patch).  In the course of doing so one probably wants to 
test that particular object chain.  In Pd, you add an extra [bng] and 
connect it to whatever the [loadbang] connects to (or use the 
File->Message window but that takes longer and triggers any other 
[loadbang] in the patch).  In Max, you add nothing-- you just 
double-click [loadbang].  It takes less time to add nothing than it does 
to add something, so in Max you save time when testing your [loadbang] 
patch.

I know it's a small amount of effort saved, but small amounts of effort 
start to add up over time, like [t b 0], having anchors to resize GUI 
objects with the mouse (like [entry]), etc.

> anyhow, if you think it's really missing roll your own (or
> use the attached)

It's certainly missing, in the sense of, "If it were there, I would 
certainly use it."  But given the difficulty of just advocating for 
[initbang], which has been around for years and (I find) necessary, I'm 
not sure I want to push for or code an addition to [loadbang] that 
merely adds a convenience.

Also, if you roll too many of your own in Pd, you end up doing so at the 
expense of portability.  I don't want to send a library of my hacks to 
standard objects with every patch I show to someone else.

-Jonathan


> 
> 
> 
> fgmadr
> IOhannes
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>