[PD] loadbang in dynamic abstractions
ben at ekran.org
Tue Mar 29 00:03:17 CEST 2005
I did not realize there was a special receive for a patch to send its
loadbang! Thanks for teaching me a little something.
I was about to impliment this in my pixelTANGO abstractopm when I
relized a little snag.
We can send messages to an abstraction:
[; pd-myabst.pd <
BUT what if I call my abstraction with:
I dont think that this would work:
[; pd-/long/ugly/path/to/myabst.pd <
Ah, well it looks like you still use pd-myabst.pd
We'll that was fun, Now I need another python script to strip the
pathname from the abstraction name!
I still think it is more elegant to do it this way.
Thanks for the tip Roman.
I'll let you know about any delay once I'm at that point.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
> please forgive my stubborness.........
> can you send me an example? i'm just wondering, because i once did a
> patch with dynamically created abs, in which other abs were created
> dynamically .. and so on, and it worked all fine (with several messages,
> also doing something like:
> [t b b f]
> | | \
> | [repeat 0]
> | |
> | [; pd-patch.pd obj 10 10 myabs(
> [; pd-myabs.pd loadbang(
> works fine on my machine, altough it takes a few miliseconds to create
> all [myabs], but all [myabs] get a loadbang. i never experienced yet
> that pd does NOT keep execution order because of the time it takes to
> build the gui or dsp-chain or whatever. but obviously i did not try
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "B. Bogart" <ben at ekran.org>
>>I unfortunatly found many issues with things not happening in the
>>correct time. Well that is to say when you dynamically create an array
>>of objects the time between the message being send and the object
>>actually being ready to receive messages is not 0ms. I can't remember
>>the delay I needed, but indeed some abstractions would not get the
>>message if I sent it immediatly after the message to create the last
>>abstraction. This is on OSX, which has had some GUI issues in the
>>could be related.
>>Oh and this is also because I'm not creating my whole dynamic patch
>>one message, but multiple messages. (This is because I'm creating one
>>abstraction for each file in a directory)Also the number of files is
>>indeterminant so I can't create one message to do it all...
>>I guess the best way to test if the last object is done would be to
>>it send a message "I'm done!" to the parent patch and then we know all
>>the abstractions are ready... Maybe I'll do this...
>>Back to replacing my TOTs with PYs.
>>Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "B. Bogart" <ben at ekran.org>
>>>>If you look at pt.layerfx in pixelTANGO I'm sending a bang to all
>>>>dynamic abstractions after all the creation messages have been sent
>>>>an additional (arbitrary) delay. It seems to work...
>>>are you sure, that a delay is necessary? in my experience, the
>>>determinisme of pd is absolutely reliable. i mean, when i use a [t b
>>>and i use the first 'bang' to create the whole patch and the second
>>>the send the 'loadbang' it works perfectly.
>>>afaik, pd rather drops the audio-processing for while than dropping a
>>>message. at least i experienced that if i create big patches
>>>dynamically, i get audio drop-outs.
>>>>It would be damn handy to have tcl/tk report when a dynamic patch has
>>>in case i am right, this wouldn't be necessary anymore... or would
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Pd-list