I believe it should not happen ($1-loop would expand to different symbols depending on $1).
cheers M On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:23:19AM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > On 08/10/2013 10:37 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > >On 08/09/2013 08:01 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > >>Well, if ia user really wants 32K receives of the same name, > >>(s)he can have > >>them - but most people won't want to do that. In contrast, you > >>can't have > >>32K copies of an abstraction without hitting this problem - and > >>the business > >>of binding patches to names is only rarely actually used. So > >>(I'm now thinking) > >>Pd should make it easy to defeat that useless behavior. > > > >So the problem doesn't happen with [s $0-loop]? > > I mean [r $0-loop] > > -Jonathan > > > > >-Jonathan > > > >> > >>cheers > >>M > >>On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:11:02PM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > >>>On 08/09/2013 04:31 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > >>>>Or... just limit the number of canvases that can bind > >>>>themselves to a single > >>>>symbol to a reasonable number (5 or so, settable by flag for > >>>>back-compatibility > >>>>if anyone cares). > >>>What happens to Claude's test if you a) patch Pd to stop binding > >>>pd-abstractionName.pd, and b) put a [receive pd-abstractionName.pd] > >>>inside the abstraction that's getting massively replicated? > >>> > >>>I'd hypothesize that you end up with the same or closely > >>>similar problem, > >>>no? > >>> > >>>If so then messing with the abstraction name binding risks introducing > >>>bugs or breaking some strange but interesting patches, and doesn't > >>>solve the larger problem which becomes anxiety about [s]/[r] pairs or > >>>any other nonlocal connection objects inside abstractions. > >>> > >>>-Jonathan > >>> > >>>>cheers > >>>>M > >>>> > >>>>On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:51:30PM +0100, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote: > >>>>>On 09/08/13 19:42, Miller Puckette wrote: > >>>>>>There still could be situations where an abstraction has > >>>>>>a sub-patch ("pd foo" > >>>>>>for instance) - I'm not clear as to whether those > >>>>>>namings should be supressed > >>>>>>as well. It seems like a tricky problem - lots of > >>>>>>people seem to use > >>>>>>abstractions with only one instance and might be > >>>>>>depending on the bindings. > >>>>>Maybe the best fix would be to make pd_unbind() constant > >>>>>time (perhaps > >>>>>by storing bindings in a doubly-linked list instead of a > >>>>>singly-linked > >>>>>list) and be done with it, instead of hacking workarounds.. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Claude > >>>>>-- > >>>>>http://mathr.co.uk > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > >>>>>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >>>>>http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > >>>>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >>>>http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > >>>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >>>http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > >UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list