[PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?

Andy Farnell padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk
Mon Feb 21 21:59:48 CET 2011



The slightly fuzzier expression "widely recognised as good practice"
might substitute.

Once something appears in the core help files, then
when it goes horribly wrong they might be tempted to
interpret it as a bug, rather than realising they
were on shaky foundations in the first place.


On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org> wrote:
> 
> > From: Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
> > To: pd-list at iem.at
> > Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:50 AM
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM
> > +0000, Pedro Lopes wrote:
> > > >yes, this is known.
> > > By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already?
> > 
> > As Cyrille wrote, it's not a bug, but a feature: Usually
> > when you use an
> > abstraction in your patch and you load that patch,
> > everything inside of that
> > abstraction is loaded first, including its loadbangs, then
> > the surrounding
> > patch goes through its own loadbangs. Normally you don't
> > recognize this, but
> > the order becomes important, when the abstraction sends
> > something to the
> > surrounding patch for example through its outlet. Then the
> > rule is: First the
> > abstractions sends through the outlet, possibly influencing
> > stuff in the main
> > patch, then the main patch loadbangs. See the attachement
> > "main.pd" for an
> > illustration of this behaviour.
> > 
> > Now dynamic patching basically is the same as loading a
> > patch: The messages are
> > almost the same, only now they get sent to a [pd something]
> > subpatch-receiver
> > instead of to Pd's internal objectmaker. You can see this
> > in the second
> > example, main-dynamic.pd, whic just patches the contents of
> > main.pd into a
> > subpatch.
> > 
> > The important difference is the handling of loadbangs: If
> > an abstraction like
> > [lb-abs] would execute its loadbang immediatly, then it
> > would bang to an
> > outlet, that is not yet connected!  So in the end your
> > result would be
> > different from the result you get when loading main.pd,
> > although it's the same
> > construction. 
> > 
> > To overcome this ambiguity, loadbanging in dynamic patching
> > is an explicit
> > action: You have to initiate the loadbangs at an
> > appropriate time that you
> > decide on your own. Ususally it's fine to do that by
> > sending a "loadbang"
> > message at the end of your dynamic patching cycle, to the
> > same receiver. This
> > way also the execution order of the construct you've build
> > will be preserved in
> > execution of the loadbangs and initialisation.
> > 
> > > When such things are discovered (and by things I mean
> > issues), shouldn't
> > > they be documented inside the help patches?
> > 
> > There are no official help patches for dynamic patching,
> > only the tutorial
> > floating around somewhere, which I can't find ATM. The
> > loadbang explanation
> > should probably be inside of this, if it isn't already.
> 
> I think I need to add the term "official" to the (probably 
> unofficial*) Pd glossary.
> 
> What does it mean?  I.e., what information are you trying 
> to convey by using it?
> 
> -Jonathan
> 
> * It uses dynamic patching + an external
> 
> > 
> > Ciao
> > -- 
> >  Frank Barknecht           
> > Do You RjDj.me?          _
> > ______footils.org__
> > 
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at iem.at
> > mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


-- 
Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>



More information about the Pd-list mailing list