[PD] Question about loadbang and dynamic sub-patches

[zmoelnig at iem.at]

On 02/18/2017 05:38 AM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
> 
> If you had a print inside the abstraction it would print. If you
> dynamically create objects, chances are you will first dynamically
> create the abstraction which can initialize itself using a loadbang,
> then the print, then the connection. In this respect its behavior is
> synonymous to, for example [f 42] which initializes itself to 42 but
> does not output anything until asked to do so. This way initialization
> of individual abstractions is handled gracefully, whereas the example
> you are suggesting would require manual interaction regardless whether
> you are using an abstraction foo or an [f 42]. In other words,
> pd-l2ork/purr-data's loadbang implementation allows for parity between
> built-in objects and abstractions.


the thing is, that pd-vanilla's [loadbang] has slightly different
semantics: it allows you to implement [init 666] as an abstraction
(rather than just only [f 42]).

you are of course free to change the semantics of any built in object.
however, it comes at the cost of deliberatly breaking compatibility.

gfmards
IOhannes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170218/9fd32eaf/attachment.sig>