[PD] abstraction penalty benchmarks

[Ivica Bukvic]

When and if such patch is implemented please do let us know as I would like
to implement it in pd-l2ork as well.

Best wishes,

Ico
On Aug 9, 2013 8:03 PM, "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Well, if ia user really wants 32K receives of the same name, (s)he can have
> them - but most people won't want to do that.  In contrast, you can't have
> 32K copies of an abstraction without hitting this problem - and the
> business
> of binding patches to names is only rarely actually used.  So (I'm now
> thinking)
> Pd should make it easy to defeat that useless behavior.
>
> cheers
> M
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:11:02PM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > On 08/09/2013 04:31 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > >Or... just limit the number of canvases that can bind themselves to a
> single
> > >symbol to a reasonable number (5 or so, settable by flag for
> back-compatibility
> > >if anyone cares).
> >
> > What happens to Claude's test if you a) patch Pd to stop binding
> > pd-abstractionName.pd, and b) put a [receive pd-abstractionName.pd]
> > inside the abstraction that's getting massively replicated?
> >
> > I'd hypothesize that you end up with the same or closely similar problem,
> > no?
> >
> > If so then messing with the abstraction name binding risks introducing
> > bugs or breaking some strange but interesting patches, and doesn't
> > solve the larger problem which becomes anxiety about [s]/[r] pairs or
> > any other nonlocal connection objects inside abstractions.
> >
> > -Jonathan
> >
> > >
> > >cheers
> > >M
> > >
> > >On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:51:30PM +0100, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
> > >>On 09/08/13 19:42, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > >>>There still could be situations where an abstraction has a sub-patch
> ("pd foo"
> > >>>for instance) - I'm not clear as to whether those namings should be
> supressed
> > >>>as well.  It seems like a tricky problem - lots of people seem to use
> > >>>abstractions with only one instance and might be depending on the
> bindings.
> > >>Maybe the best fix would be to make pd_unbind() constant time (perhaps
> > >>by storing bindings in a doubly-linked list instead of a singly-linked
> > >>list) and be done with it, instead of hacking workarounds..
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Claude
> > >>--
> > >>http://mathr.co.uk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20130809/de12b299/attachment-0001.htm>