[PD] Creation Argument Weirdness

Matt Barber brbrofsvl at gmail.com
Fri Apr 10 20:30:04 CEST 2009

I haven't tried this (and can't on this computer), but it occurred to
me you may want to see what happens if you put the [pipe 0] directly
after the [loadbang] (before the trigger).  [pipe] and [delay] should
always make a break in logic flow, right?


On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Matt.
> I also see that I overlooked a previous thread about this very
> issue.  I guess I shouldn't make a bug tracker entry since it's not
> clear whether this is desired behavior or not, but I'm curious:
> does anyone desire this behavior?  It just seems obscure that
> loadbang would bang but disable (non-[pipe]ed) outlets.
> -Jonathan
> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PD] Creation Argument Weirdness
>> To: pd-list at iem.at, "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com>
>> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 4:34 AM
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I think I may have found a bug.  After changing the
>> abstraction
>> > argument, nothing comes out of the outlet to the
>> parent patch.  I'm on
>> > windows; can someone confirm before I post it on the
>> bug tracker?
>> Same over here.  As a very limited hack, you can throw a
>> [pipe 0] in,
>> but dataflow ordering gets screwed up.  See attached.
>> M

More information about the Pd-list mailing list