[PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 22 03:00:22 CET 2011



--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> Cc: pd-list at iem.at, "Frank Barknecht" <fbar at footils.org>
> Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:59 PM
> 
> 
> The slightly fuzzier expression "widely recognised as good
> practice"
> might substitute.

That can't be, because there are things in the official docs-- like 
wires overlapping xlets in the audio tutorial, for example-- that are 
widely recognised as bad practice.

> 
> 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.

That makes sense if we're comparing core help docs to, say, docs on 
an experimental external library.  But concerning the dynamic patching 
docs (pd-msg), what's the shaky ground?

Either you or Frank:
Tell me what's wrong with the pd-msg docs, and what needs improvement to 
achieve the standard of "official docs" and I'll make those changes.

-Jonathan

> 
> 
> 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