[PD] Inlet - Unexpected Behaviour

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Sat Aug 29 21:04:12 CEST 2020

Em qui., 6 de ago. de 2020 às 16:08, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>

> > On Thursday, August 6, 2020, 2:07:09 PM EDT, matthew brandi <
> mfbrandi at outlook.com> wrote:
> > Dear people
> > In my role as village idiot, I am asking whether the string "fwd" in a
> message has a
> special meaning to inlet.
> > Naively, I was expecting inlet to pass the string to the subpatch, but
> it seems not
> to. See example patch attached.
> AFAICT that's a regression due to the way Pd Vanilla implemented message
> forwarding for
> [inlet~ fwd]. That's a feature that allows a signal inlet of a
> subpatch/abstraction to forward
> non-signal messages to the right outlet of [inlet~ fwd]. (The right outlet
> sprouts when the
> "fwd" argument is present.)
> Another regression-- there is no longer an error if you try to send a
> non-signal message to
> [inlet~].
> Another regression-- [inlet~ fwd] unconditionally allocates space on the
> stack to copy the
> entire incoming message. If you generate a long enough message this will
> blow the stack
> and cause Pd to crash. Esp. important given that Windows stack is much
> smaller than the RAM
> available for heap allocation on most machines.
> Also-- I *think* Pd Vanilla doesn't forward pointer messages through
> [inlet~ fwd]. It appeared to be an oversight-- at least I didn't see any
> comment about it.
> A GSoC student spent some time reimplementing this in Purr Data, so none
> of thiese should be
> issues there.

I think it's a good idea if you're changing and fixing stuff to also send a
PR to vanilla as a proposal. Would you consider doing that as well?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20200829/5c4c0866/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list