[PD] propertybang-help

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Apr 1 19:31:51 CEST 2010

On 2010-04-01 18:11, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> That's currently the problem with your help patch.  The behavior of the 
> object is clear from the usage description, but then you decide to put 
> "per abstraction" in all caps, which made me wonder whether you mean 
> "per abstraction instance"-- the desired behavior-- or "per abstraction class"-- in which case I would take it to mean right-clicking one instance 
> sends a bang to _all_ instances.  Then you said at the bottom that "you 

it does the "desired" behaviour.

> cannot have [propertybang]s per subpatch," which confirms the latter (see 
> "2.7. subpatches"),

"subpatch" in the help patch means what is commonly called "subpatch"
(aka [pd]) which is a "one-off subpatch" in the docs.

>  which would render the object useless and make me 
> think it's just not finished yet.  So I have to build my own abstraction 
> and test the object to see whether the it does something useful, which 
> defeats the whole purpose of having the help patch in the first place.

i cannot follow.
i don't like help-patches that are not self-contained (at least for what
they are trying to document); in older versions [propertybang] obviously
did not work for "one-off subpatches" (hence the documentation about
this), which made it a bit hard to show without abstractions.
otoh, creating an abstraction yourself and test whether the object
indeed does what _you_ want it do, is not so complicated.

anyhow, thanks for the feedback.


PS: and yes, iemguts is basically undocumented.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100401/ab0901b4/attachment.bin>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list