On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Here's a guess - I think each copy of the abstraction binds itself to > a symbol, "pd-<name>". Binding is fast bt unbinding is linear-time in the > number of things bound to the symbol... ouch. > > There's a good reason to bind toplevels and named sub-patches to ther > names, > but I think there's little reason to do it for abstractions - perhaps I can > take this out, but I'd have to leave it as an option for compatibility > (ouch!) > > Miller Hi Miller, Just very generally BTW: Do you mean binary compatibility or patch compatibility? Either way, what are your thoughts about the possibility of a future Pd-1.0 which would break (some kind of) compatibility for the sake of revolutionary progress? András
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
