On Sun, 2013-03-24 at 10:40 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> > > To: pd-list@iem.at > > Cc: > > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:25 AM > > Subject: Re: [PD] some issues with dynamic patching > > > > On Sam, 2013-03-23 at 15:39 +0200, Alexandros Drymonitis wrote: > >> Concerning [loadbang] you should use [initbang] instead AFAIK. But > >> that's not vanilla. > > > > There are two separate issues to be considered: > > > > [initbang] should be used when you dynamically create xlets within an > > abstraction, so that those are created before the connections of the > > parent are drawn. > > > > I think what OP means is that [loadbang]s in dynamically created > > abstractions do not fire too late, but not at all. Whether this is a > > feature or a bug is not clear to me, but it is the current behavior > > which has been discussed many times on this list. To me this behavior > > actually makes sense. It allows you to first create many instances of > > the abstraction dynamically and only then let them loadbang by sending a > > 'loadbang' message to their canvasses. > > And in most instances it's much easier to just use [initbang] to initialize > the abstraction in the way the user expects it to happen. Unless the > abstraction initialization is sending a message to an outlet there is no need > to > manually send loadbangs.
Good point. > [initbang] will do the right thing here. Yeah, though it is possible to do it with [loadbang], it is cumbersome and much easier with [initbang] ( and I'd put it relatively high on the please-add-it-to-vanilla list). Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
