[PD] Question about loadbang and dynamic sub-patches

[Christof Ressi]

> in you example, you have 2 subpatch named sub

Ouch... forgot to add a dollar zero... how stupid. thanks!


> Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 um 15:03 Uhr
> Von: "cyrille henry" <ch at chnry.net>
> An: pd-list at lists.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] Question about loadbang and dynamic sub-patches
>
> hello
> in you example, you have 2 subpatch named sub
both of them Reserve the loadbang.
> the 1st transfert it to the 2nd, and the 2nd receive also it's own.
> 
> rename one of the subpatch to have only 1 loadbang.
> 
> anyway. why using loadbang/initbang in dynamic patching?
> why not using a less confusing [r init] and manually send "init"...
> KISS
> (one can use $arg to restrict the scope of the init)
> 
> Cheers
> C
> 
> 
> Le 17/02/2017 à 11:56, Christof Ressi a écrit :
> > Since you too mentioned the |loadbang( message method, do you (or others) have an idea why nested loadbangs fire more than once with this method? [initbang] on the other hand works just as expected. This is not an issue if one uses loadbang only to initialize some variable, but it can induce subtle bugs once it triggers some action which should only happen once (e.g. incrementing a counter, dynamically creating objects etc.)
> >
> > Is this expected, known behaviour or rather a bug?
> >
> > See attached patch.
> >
> > Christof
> >
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 um 10:41 Uhr
> >> Von: zmoelnig at iem.at
> >> An: pd-list at lists.iem.at
> >> Betreff: Re: [PD] Question about loadbang and dynamic sub-patches
> >>
> >> On 02/17/2017 02:25 AM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
> >>> FWIW in pd-l2ork/purr-data loadbang fires even in dynamically created
> >>> patches.
> >>
> >> so does that mean, that if i have an abstraction "foo":
> >>
> >> [loadbang]
> >> |
> >> [f 1]
> >> |
> >> [outlet]
> >>
> >> and i dynamically create a patch including that abstraction, the
> >> loadbang will be lost on the created patch?
> >> (meaning: the following will not print:
> >>  #X obj 100 100 foo;
> >>  #X obj 100 200 print;
> >>  #X connect 0 0 1 0;
> >> )
> >>
> >> if it does print, i would be interested in the heuristic you used.
> >>
> >> if it does indeed not print, then i think i just hit a bug (as the patch
> >> behaves different when created dynamically or not¹)
> >>
> >> gfmsrda
> >> IOhannes
> >>
> >> ¹ it doesnt't in Pd vanilla, if you don't forget to send a "loadbang"
> >> message after doing the dynamic patching as a kind of "finalize".
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>