[PD] Changing Send/Receive Names After Instantiation

[Christof Ressi]

Check out the following discussion on GitHub: 
https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/604

TL;DR: if you unbind a symbol from a receiver while sending to the 
symbol, Pd can crash because you modify the bind list while iterating 
over it.

Personally, I've been using [iem_receive] in some projects and didn't 
run into problems, but only because I avoid the case described above. 
Note that the same problem exists with the iemgui objects where you can 
set the receive symbol dynamically.

> and why is it not dangerous to change the receiver in the signal domain ? 
In the case of [r~], it is [s~] which is bound to a symbol, that's why 
you can change the symbol of [r~] but not of [s~]. With [throw~] and 
[catch~] it's the other way round.

> would you say, it's "saver" to do dynamic patching if a [receive] has 
> to be flexible ? (i.e. create and destroy vanilla [recieve] objects in 
> a subpatch when they need to have another address) 
Dynamically destroying objects is even more dangerous ;-)

Christof

On 25.03.2020 20:46, oliver wrote:
> IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>
>>
>> changing the receiver is dangerous (as in: could crash your system).
>
> really ? that's (bad) news to me.
> how so ? why could that crash a system ?
> and why is it not dangerous to change the receiver in the signal domain ?
>
> would you say, it's "saver" to do dynamic patching if a [receive] has 
> to be flexible ? (i.e. create and destroy vanilla [recieve] objects in 
> a subpatch when they need to have another address)
>
> (atm i use [iem_receive] quite a lot in my patches ...)
>
> thanks for any insight
>
> oliver
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list