[PD] abstraction penalty benchmarks

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 10 17:23:19 CEST 2013


On 08/10/2013 10:37 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> 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]?

I mean [r $0-loop]

-Jonathan

>
> -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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>




More information about the Pd-list mailing list