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

[Antoine Rousseau]

Yes I realized that. So it should be something more specific.
Why not a wider scope object, like [pdconfig], that would take "once" as an
argument?

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 23:55, Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Sat, 2018-09-22 at 23:29 +0200, Antoine Rousseau wrote:
> > Of course [once] would be much better than [lock]....
>
> [once] is taken by iemlib. Not that I think every library in existence
> should be considered regarding name conflicts when introducing new
> objects to Pd, but I feel that [once] is in wide use and adding a
> [once] with totally different behavior would be a bold move.
>
> Roman_______________________________________________
> 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/20180923/646de2b2/attachment.html>