[PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Antoine Rousseau antoine at metalu.net
Sat Sep 22 23:29:57 CEST 2018


Of course [once] would be much better than [lock]....

Antoine Rousseau
  http://www.metalu.net <http://metalu.net> __
http://www.metaluachahuter.com/
<http://www.metaluachahuter.com/compagnies/al1-ant1/>



Le sam. 22 sept. 2018 à 23:28, Antoine Rousseau <antoine at metalu.net> a
écrit :

> A bit trickier solution would be to add the possibility to lock a given
> patch, i.e forbid to open it twice.
>
> This could be either via an additional object (e.g [lock]), or a GUI
> property that would be saved into the patch file, like the font size.
>
> This would require that, when a patch is requested for opening, the file
> would be first read, then discard if either [lock] is present or
> lock_property is set and a toplevel patch of this file is already opened.
>
> Antoine
>
> Le sam. 22 sept. 2018 à 23:11, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi at gmx.at> a
> écrit :
>
>> I can imagine it being it a GUI preference. maybe there could be a dialog
>> asking you if you really want to open the same patch again with the usual
>> 'yes', 'no' + 'don't ask me again' (saving your selection in the GUI
>> preferences).
>>
>> OTOH, I kind of agree with the others that I never thought it was a
>> problem that you can open the same patch several times... if it's just for
>> test tone patch, this could be solved in other ways.
>>
>> Christof
>>
>> > Gesendet: Samstag, 22. September 2018 um 22:53 Uhr
>> > Von: oliver <oliver at klingt.org>
>> > An: Pd-list <pd-list at mail.iem.at>
>> > Betreff: Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > 1) ugly workaround, make symlinks to the same patch so it can be
>> opened
>> > > (and then managed) via different filenames or directory names)
>> > >
>> > > 2) I could add a message to pd or perhaps a startup flag, or both, to
>> > > switch the behavior on and off.
>> > >
>> > > 3) (I doubt this is a good idea) I could make it "0.48 compatible" to
>> open
>> > > duplicates.
>> > >
>> >
>> > my vote is #2 !
>> >
>> > (that is: both a startup flag AND a possible message to PD to
>> > dynamically turn it on/off)
>> >
>> > now we only have to decide what the default behaviour should be ;-)
>> >
>> > (i personally think that multiple patch instances
>> > should stay the default.)
>> >
>> >
>> > best
>> >
>> > oliver
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20180922/34662e91/attachment.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list