[PD] abstraction penalty benchmarks

[Miller Puckette]

I believe it should not happen ($1-loop would expand to different symbols
depending on $1).

cheers
M

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:23:19AM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list