[PD] [initbang] vs [loadbang]

[Dan Wilcox]

I’d follow up with a request for [closebang] in vanilla as well.

--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <https://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:00 AM, pd-list-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> From: Alexandros Drymonitis <adrcki at gmail.com <mailto:adrcki at gmail.com>>
> Subject: [PD] [initbang] vs [loadbang]
> Date: July 5, 2015 at 5:56:29 AM EDT
> To: "pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>" <pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>>
> 
> 
> I've made an abstraction with an arbitrary number of inlets, and in extended you can save it in a patch as its connections will be maintained (using [initbang] to create the inlets), but in vanilla it's not possible cause I'm using [loadbang] and Pd fails to make the connections (as the inlets are being created after the patch has been loaded).
> 
> Is there a way to achieve the [initbang] effect in vanilla? Or is there any intention to include [initbang] in a future vanilla release?
> 
> Also, can't seem to find any initbang.c or initbang.pd_darwin. I guess it's in a file that contains more classes and is called something else. Is there a way to find a binary or code to compile, so I can use [initbang] in vanilla on os x?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20150705/58fd6bfc/attachment.html>