[PD] initbang/closebang and $@ patch statuses
matju at artengine.ca
Sun Jun 20 03:28:03 CEST 2010
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> 2009-03-14, quoting Miller: "Anyhow, I'm trying to think of a better
> mechanism for allowing abstractions to have variable numbers of
> inlets/outlets, so I'm hoping initbang won't be necessary in the long
If he were really trying, he would have found something or would have
asked for advice. But no.
There's also a problem with always waiting for the best solution at the
expense of finding a solution at all, NOW, or five years ago.
> I'd like to ask: what is the problem with [initbang] as it is, and what would
> a "better mechanism" look like?
Whatever it is, it can't be supporting variable number of signals. What I
thought about, is that you could have a [inlets] just like GF's [receives]
that does multiple-receive. You first get the receive-symbol from the
right outlet, the actual content from the left outlet. For [inlets] it
would be the same, except you get an inlet-number out of the right-outlet.
It's the only way you can do it without dynamic-patching. That's a cool
solution, but it also doesn't support signals at all.
Thus you still need [initbang] and dynamic patching.
Are there any other reasons to use [initbang] ? I can't think of any, but
I have the impression that I'm forgetting about something.
Well, actually, you can send to a toplevel iemgui's receive-symbol at
loadbang-time, but you can send to an abstraction's receive-symbol at
loadbang-time ONLY WHEN the receive-symbol is not computed at
loadbang-time. Else the loadbang-order will not be reliable.
It took me a while to think of that one, but it makes me believe that we'd
eventually hit limitations and have to do weird workarounds because of
those limitations if there's no [initbang], for things not related to
variable number of inlets.
> If a "better mechanism" is not currently in the works, could these two
> objects be included in pd-vanilla so that in the meantime people can
> make abstractions that have dynamic numbers of inlets/outlets that will
> work on both versions of pd?
do you have Miller's phone number ?
> (I've never used [closebang] but I imagine the same reasoning holds for
> it as well.)
[closebang] would be usually used for wholly different reasons. All the
examples for [closebang] are unrelated to why pd needs [initbang]. The
only reason why they're put together, is because they are two classes that
are related to loadbang as all three send a bang at a specific special
> It looks like the discussion just stopped, and I couldn't find any
> threads on user or dev list.
What can you say more, on stuff that gets rejected without proper
feedback, or ignored, for years ? At this point I would just say :
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
More information about the Pd-list