[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 04:41:37 CEST 2017
I just think this could be an important request to be *reissued*,
2017-10-21 0:38 GMT-02:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>:
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list