[PD] some issues with dynamic patching

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sun, 2013-03-24 at 10:40 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
> > To: pd-list at iem.at
> > Cc: 
> > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PD] some issues with dynamic patching
> > 
> > On Sam, 2013-03-23 at 15:39 +0200, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
> >>  Concerning [loadbang] you should use [initbang] instead AFAIK. But
> >>  that's not vanilla.
> > 
> > There are two separate issues to be considered:
> > 
> > [initbang] should be used when you dynamically create xlets within an
> > abstraction, so that those are created before the connections of the
> > parent are drawn.
> > 
> > I think what OP means is that [loadbang]s in dynamically created
> > abstractions do not fire too late, but not at all. Whether this is a
> > feature or a bug is not clear to me, but it is the current behavior
> > which has been discussed many times on this list. To me this behavior
> > actually makes sense. It allows you to first create many instances of
> > the abstraction dynamically and only then let them loadbang by sending a
> > 'loadbang' message to their canvasses.
> 
> And in most instances it's much easier to just use [initbang] to initialize
> the abstraction in the way the user expects it to happen.  Unless the
> abstraction initialization is sending a message to an outlet there is no need to
> manually send loadbangs.

Good point.

>  [initbang] will do the right thing here.

Yeah, though it is possible to do it with [loadbang], it is cumbersome
and much easier with [initbang] ( and I'd put it relatively high on the
please-add-it-to-vanilla list).

Roman