I'd like to find a way that doesn't use glist_delete() which does a linear search to find the objects's predecessor - if you use this to cull items from a list of them the complexity is order n^2.
But this gives me an idea - the pointer object could perfectly well simply cache the previous item in the list so that the current one can be deleted and the previous one linked to the successor. (Of course if the window's visible it's still very inefficient - so this might be a lot less important than I've been thinking it is.) cheers miller On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:33:49PM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: > Hi Miller, what problem do you see with this solution in particular: > https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/383 ? > > you're right that deleting a scalar by pointer will invalidate all other > pointers in the glist, but there's really no way around it...*) it also > happens when you delete a scalar with the mouse. if it's fine there, why not > also allow it via a method? at least I'm providing a valid pointer to the > next scalar in the list. > > Christof > > *) unless we change the whole ref counting system to be per scalar and not > per glist - which I'm not going to advocate here :-) > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:00 Uhr > > Von: "Miller Puckette" <[email protected]> > > An: "Henri Augusto Bisognini" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49? > > > > I hope to get the intelligent patching features in - but not sure about the > > pointer-invalid problem; I've been thinking for years about how to do that > > and haven't liked any of the solutions I've seen yet. > > > > cheers > > Miller > > > > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:52:37AM +0000, Henri Augusto Bisognini wrote: > > > Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a > > > couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and > > > excitement : ) > > > > > > -I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. > > > There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh > > > > > > -Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been > > > working on? That will be a dream come true. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Henri. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > De: Pd-dev <[email protected]> em nome de Miller Puckette > > > <[email protected]> > > > Enviado: s?bado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28 > > > Para: Christof Ressi > > > Cc: pd-dev > > > Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49? > > > > > > Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major > > > release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better > > > scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!) > > > > > > My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so > > > I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it > > > out > > > late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in > > > February or March. > > > > > > For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '\' characters (I had earlier tried > > > to make it possible simply never to make a `\` character visible to the > > > user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix > > > pasting > > > to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, > > > not off the edge of the window) > > > > > > For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it > > > more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the > > > 'atom' > > > box (lists; texts). > > > > > > Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting > > > order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of > > > another without them being connected by a patch cord. > > > > > > Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs > > > anytime > > > this fall and get them into a release by late winter. > > > > > > cheers > > > Miller > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: > > > > Hi Miller, > > > > > > > > I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I > > > > need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time > > > > left? :-) > > > > > > > > Christof > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Pd-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Pd-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pd-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev > > _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
