[PD] initbang in vanilla (was Re: how to destroy/delete an object with dynamic patching?)

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Sat Oct 21 04:38:47 CEST 2017

ok, browsing the pd list archive for some data on "this has been discussed
over and over", what I found was many discussions about initbang, making
the external work in vanilla, things like that, but no real discussion on
why not having it in vanilla.

I can see, from a couple of years ago, proposals for initbang in vanilla,
but No actual development on the matter (namely, Alexandros Drymonitis and
Dan Wilcox - source

I also see a thread opened by jonathan wilkens in 2010, commenting on a
patch to add initbang/colsebang to vanilla from 2006 (ID: 1544041), asking
"what's the story on it?", saying that he's seen "*repeated  hopes from
various developers that these objects be included as internal objects in pd*."
- but this thread also had no feedback/conclusion - source

Going back earlier, I see a message from 2008, where Matt Barber asks if
initbang is on vanilla and IOhannes replies "no, and I'm not sure why",
after that Matt Barbour "claims for its inclusion to, again, no response at
all - source

And this, about 10 years ago, is when gave up digging deep through the mail
archive trying to find a clear rejection why initbang should not be added
to Vanilla. Ok, I might have missed something, but I did my best, and what
I have makes me challenge this notion that this has been discussed and
denied over and over. By the way, I have to say it's not the first time I
hear something has been fully discussed on the mail list, but I actually do
not find a clear closure on the matter...

I can ask again if someone had a source or fill me in on the veredict. I've
also seen a same discussion come up, but when I respond to it, I give the
source and what came out of that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna reissue an argument that has been going
on and on. And I don't wanna raise the same case once more and argue in
favor of it when it has been turned out many times. It's just that I don't
see it, can't find it. On the contrary, I found several requests in over
many years that simply did not get real attention... but if there's in fact
a clear and strong rejection, I don't really care, I won't mind, I'll find
me another solution even if it involves making my own external - which is
to say this is not a selfish motivation, I just think this could be an
important request to be, as it really seems like a wish from many members
of this community.


2017-10-20 21:17 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>:

> 2017-10-20 18:19 GMT-02:00 Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>:
>> Though I mostly agree with you, I disagree with the notion that raising
>> the same thing several times is necessarily a bad thing. I'm living in
>> a country where the people directly vote about some decisions. We would
>> live in medieval times still - so to speak - if we hadn't voted about
>> the same thing many times. 10 years later, the (Pd-) world might have
>> changed a bit and suddenly implementing [initbang] in Pd-vanilla is
>> considered nice and pretty.. How can you know?
> That was *exactly* what I was thinking, thank you for pointing that out
> so I can give you a +1
> And yeah, 10 years ago was sorta ages ago for Pd, many things have
> happened, like the demise of Pd Extended. There's this libpd thing and the
> need for it to be more self sufficient. And this feels like such a basic
> core functionality that I really wonder why not to have it somehow. So I
> really wonder if the reasoning from 10 years ago is still as pertinent now
> for the community as whole.
> cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20171021/34e171a2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list