> in you example, you have 2 subpatch named sub Ouch... forgot to add a dollar zero... how stupid. thanks!
> Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 um 15:03 Uhr > Von: "cyrille henry" <c...@chnry.net> > An: pd-list@lists.iem.at > Betreff: Re: [PD] Question about loadbang and dynamic sub-patches > > hello > in you example, you have 2 subpatch named sub both of them Reserve the loadbang. > the 1st transfert it to the 2nd, and the 2nd receive also it's own. > > rename one of the subpatch to have only 1 loadbang. > > anyway. why using loadbang/initbang in dynamic patching? > why not using a less confusing [r init] and manually send "init"... > KISS > (one can use $arg to restrict the scope of the init) > > Cheers > C > > > Le 17/02/2017 à 11:56, Christof Ressi a écrit : > > Since you too mentioned the |loadbang( message method, do you (or others) > > have an idea why nested loadbangs fire more than once with this method? > > [initbang] on the other hand works just as expected. This is not an issue > > if one uses loadbang only to initialize some variable, but it can induce > > subtle bugs once it triggers some action which should only happen once > > (e.g. incrementing a counter, dynamically creating objects etc.) > > > > Is this expected, known behaviour or rather a bug? > > > > See attached patch. > > > > Christof > > > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 um 10:41 Uhr > >> Von: zmoel...@iem.at > >> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at > >> Betreff: Re: [PD] Question about loadbang and dynamic sub-patches > >> > >> On 02/17/2017 02:25 AM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote: > >>> FWIW in pd-l2ork/purr-data loadbang fires even in dynamically created > >>> patches. > >> > >> so does that mean, that if i have an abstraction "foo": > >> > >> [loadbang] > >> | > >> [f 1] > >> | > >> [outlet] > >> > >> and i dynamically create a patch including that abstraction, the > >> loadbang will be lost on the created patch? > >> (meaning: the following will not print: > >> #X obj 100 100 foo; > >> #X obj 100 200 print; > >> #X connect 0 0 1 0; > >> ) > >> > >> if it does print, i would be interested in the heuristic you used. > >> > >> if it does indeed not print, then i think i just hit a bug (as the patch > >> behaves different when created dynamically or not¹) > >> > >> gfmsrda > >> IOhannes > >> > >> ¹ it doesnt't in Pd vanilla, if you don't forget to send a "loadbang" > >> message after doing the dynamic patching as a kind of "finalize". > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
