[PD] abstraction penalty benchmarks

[Jonathan Wilkes]

On 08/09/2013 08:01 PM, Miller Puckette 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.

So the problem doesn't happen with [s $0-loop]?

-Jonathan

>
> 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