[PD] variable number of outlets/inlets /dynamic patching

[Jonathan Wilkes]

>________________________________
> From: Michael Zacherl <sdiy-mz01 at blauwurf.info>
>To: IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> 
>Cc: pd-list list <pd-list at iem.at> 
>Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:56 AM
>Subject: Re: [PD] variable number of outlets/inlets /dynamic patching
>  
>Hallo IOhannes,
>
>> On 08/11/2012 01:58 PM, Michael Zacherl wrote:
>>> In Pd-extended it could be easier since there are more possibilities to control the init-phase of a just loaded patch.
>>> I think it's in iemlib (Iohannes could chime in) but admittedly I forgot about it, since also there was a lot of discussion wether this should go into Vanilla or not,
>> 
>> the secrect is [initbang], which fires when the abstraction is ready (rather than [loadbang], which fires when all the patch (with all the abstractions, sub-patches and what not) is ready)).
>
>what about dependencies within cascaded abstractions?
>E.g. one dynamically patched abstraction would need another one? 
>is there a way to guarantee a sequence in order not to break connections?
>
>> unfortunately, i haven't found a way to make [initbang] without hacking Pd itself, so it's not part of any library (e.g. iemlib).
>
>so it's a modified Pd-Vanilla, we have with Pd-extended, not only Pd-Vanilla plus a load of externals and abstractions?
>I wasn't aware of that. Now I understand all the discussions about that (not trying to open an old can of worms!  ;-)
>
>> instead, there is a (low-level) "patch" for Pd somewhere in the tracker, which is applied to Pd-extended (but unfortunately not to Pd-vanilla).
>
>tracker?
>
>> thus: if you want to need [initbang] (which you do if you really need variable in/outlets in abstractions), you need to either compile Pd yourself or use Pd-extended (only the core binary, no need for any externals here)
>
>
>What I tried, and apparently works, is to create a maximum number of inlets/outlets and delete the ones not needed at load-time.
>ButI consider this one a hack and certainly doesn't improve the reliability of a dymamic patch.
 
Even with [initbang] it's still a hack.  When designing and testing the abstraction, the user must remember to always remove the dynamically created inlets/outlets before saving, and there's no way to automate that without using yet another hack (faking mouse/cut messages, for example).
 
-Jonathan

>
>Michael.
>
>--
>feed your perception: http://blauwurf.at/
>http://soundcloud.com/noiseconformist
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
>