Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
Hi, On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 06:00:22PM -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: Tell me what's wrong with the pd-msg docs, and what needs improvement to achieve the standard of official docs and I'll make those changes. I already wrote what's wrong. Now I have committed an updated loadbang example patch based on the example and text I posted earlier. Ciao -- Frank BarknechtDo You RjDj.me? _ __footils.org__ ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Frank Barknecht wrote: We all know, that dynamic patching, while very useful, still is considered exploiting internal implementation details, and has never been encouraged nor documented by its author, Miller. Yet if Miller changed internals so that dynamic patching becomes impossible, what would he achieve with that ? What would you do ? What would I do ? What would other people do about it ? It does not help anyone, to know that Miller doesn't encourage some of the most interesting patching in the Pd community. What are you trying to achieve, by restating Miller's position ? ___ | Mathieu Bouchard tél: +1.514.383.3801 Villeray, Montréal, QC___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
I just skimmed your changes, but I think that#39;s a great addition to the docs. -Jonathan ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM +, Pedro Lopes wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? As Cyrille wrote, it's not a bug, but a feature: Usually when you use an abstraction in your patch and you load that patch, everything inside of that abstraction is loaded first, including its loadbangs, then the surrounding patch goes through its own loadbangs. Normally you don't recognize this, but the order becomes important, when the abstraction sends something to the surrounding patch for example through its outlet. Then the rule is: First the abstractions sends through the outlet, possibly influencing stuff in the main patch, then the main patch loadbangs. See the attachement main.pd for an illustration of this behaviour. Now dynamic patching basically is the same as loading a patch: The messages are almost the same, only now they get sent to a [pd something] subpatch-receiver instead of to Pd's internal objectmaker. You can see this in the second example, main-dynamic.pd, whic just patches the contents of main.pd into a subpatch. The important difference is the handling of loadbangs: If an abstraction like [lb-abs] would execute its loadbang immediatly, then it would bang to an outlet, that is not yet connected! So in the end your result would be different from the result you get when loading main.pd, although it's the same construction. To overcome this ambiguity, loadbanging in dynamic patching is an explicit action: You have to initiate the loadbangs at an appropriate time that you decide on your own. Ususally it's fine to do that by sending a loadbang message at the end of your dynamic patching cycle, to the same receiver. This way also the execution order of the construct you've build will be preserved in execution of the loadbangs and initialisation. When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? There are no official help patches for dynamic patching, only the tutorial floating around somewhere, which I can't find ATM. The loadbang explanation should probably be inside of this, if it isn't already. Ciao -- Frank BarknechtDo You RjDj.me? _ __footils.org__ dynamic-loadbang.tgz Description: GNU Unix tar archive ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org wrote: From: Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects? To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:50 AM On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM +, Pedro Lopes wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? As Cyrille wrote, it's not a bug, but a feature: Usually when you use an abstraction in your patch and you load that patch, everything inside of that abstraction is loaded first, including its loadbangs, then the surrounding patch goes through its own loadbangs. Normally you don't recognize this, but the order becomes important, when the abstraction sends something to the surrounding patch for example through its outlet. Then the rule is: First the abstractions sends through the outlet, possibly influencing stuff in the main patch, then the main patch loadbangs. See the attachement main.pd for an illustration of this behaviour. Now dynamic patching basically is the same as loading a patch: The messages are almost the same, only now they get sent to a [pd something] subpatch-receiver instead of to Pd's internal objectmaker. You can see this in the second example, main-dynamic.pd, whic just patches the contents of main.pd into a subpatch. The important difference is the handling of loadbangs: If an abstraction like [lb-abs] would execute its loadbang immediatly, then it would bang to an outlet, that is not yet connected! So in the end your result would be different from the result you get when loading main.pd, although it's the same construction. To overcome this ambiguity, loadbanging in dynamic patching is an explicit action: You have to initiate the loadbangs at an appropriate time that you decide on your own. Ususally it's fine to do that by sending a loadbang message at the end of your dynamic patching cycle, to the same receiver. This way also the execution order of the construct you've build will be preserved in execution of the loadbangs and initialisation. When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? There are no official help patches for dynamic patching, only the tutorial floating around somewhere, which I can't find ATM. The loadbang explanation should probably be inside of this, if it isn't already. I think I need to add the term official to the (probably unofficial*) Pd glossary. What does it mean? I.e., what information are you trying to convey by using it? -Jonathan * It uses dynamic patching + an external Ciao -- Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ __footils.org__ -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org wrote: From: Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects? To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:50 AM On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM [...] There are no official help patches for dynamic patching, only the tutorial floating around somewhere, which I can't find ATM. The loadbang explanation should probably be inside of this, if it isn't already. doc/manuals/pd-msg/1.msg_and_patch/5.loadbang.pd -Jonathan Ciao -- Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ __footils.org__ -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
The slightly fuzzier expression widely recognised as good practice might substitute. Once something appears in the core help files, then when it goes horribly wrong they might be tempted to interpret it as a bug, rather than realising they were on shaky foundations in the first place. On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:28:58 -0800 (PST) Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org wrote: From: Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects? To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:50 AM On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM +, Pedro Lopes wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? As Cyrille wrote, it's not a bug, but a feature: Usually when you use an abstraction in your patch and you load that patch, everything inside of that abstraction is loaded first, including its loadbangs, then the surrounding patch goes through its own loadbangs. Normally you don't recognize this, but the order becomes important, when the abstraction sends something to the surrounding patch for example through its outlet. Then the rule is: First the abstractions sends through the outlet, possibly influencing stuff in the main patch, then the main patch loadbangs. See the attachement main.pd for an illustration of this behaviour. Now dynamic patching basically is the same as loading a patch: The messages are almost the same, only now they get sent to a [pd something] subpatch-receiver instead of to Pd's internal objectmaker. You can see this in the second example, main-dynamic.pd, whic just patches the contents of main.pd into a subpatch. The important difference is the handling of loadbangs: If an abstraction like [lb-abs] would execute its loadbang immediatly, then it would bang to an outlet, that is not yet connected! So in the end your result would be different from the result you get when loading main.pd, although it's the same construction. To overcome this ambiguity, loadbanging in dynamic patching is an explicit action: You have to initiate the loadbangs at an appropriate time that you decide on your own. Ususally it's fine to do that by sending a loadbang message at the end of your dynamic patching cycle, to the same receiver. This way also the execution order of the construct you've build will be preserved in execution of the loadbangs and initialisation. When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? There are no official help patches for dynamic patching, only the tutorial floating around somewhere, which I can't find ATM. The loadbang explanation should probably be inside of this, if it isn't already. I think I need to add the term official to the (probably unofficial*) Pd glossary. What does it mean? I.e., what information are you trying to convey by using it? -Jonathan * It uses dynamic patching + an external Ciao -- Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ __footils.org__ -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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 -- Andy Farnell padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Andy Farnell padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote: From: Andy Farnell padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects? To: Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com Cc: pd-list@iem.at, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:59 PM The slightly fuzzier expression widely recognised as good practice might substitute. That can't be, because there are things in the official docs-- like wires overlapping xlets in the audio tutorial, for example-- that are widely recognised as bad practice. Once something appears in the core help files, then when it goes horribly wrong they might be tempted to interpret it as a bug, rather than realising they were on shaky foundations in the first place. That makes sense if we're comparing core help docs to, say, docs on an experimental external library. But concerning the dynamic patching docs (pd-msg), what's the shaky ground? Either you or Frank: Tell me what's wrong with the pd-msg docs, and what needs improvement to achieve the standard of official docs and I'll make those changes. -Jonathan On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:28:58 -0800 (PST) Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 2/21/11, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org wrote: From: Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org Subject: Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects? To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:50 AM On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:49:09PM +, Pedro Lopes wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? As Cyrille wrote, it's not a bug, but a feature: Usually when you use an abstraction in your patch and you load that patch, everything inside of that abstraction is loaded first, including its loadbangs, then the surrounding patch goes through its own loadbangs. Normally you don't recognize this, but the order becomes important, when the abstraction sends something to the surrounding patch for example through its outlet. Then the rule is: First the abstractions sends through the outlet, possibly influencing stuff in the main patch, then the main patch loadbangs. See the attachement main.pd for an illustration of this behaviour. Now dynamic patching basically is the same as loading a patch: The messages are almost the same, only now they get sent to a [pd something] subpatch-receiver instead of to Pd's internal objectmaker. You can see this in the second example, main-dynamic.pd, whic just patches the contents of main.pd into a subpatch. The important difference is the handling of loadbangs: If an abstraction like [lb-abs] would execute its loadbang immediatly, then it would bang to an outlet, that is not yet connected! So in the end your result would be different from the result you get when loading main.pd, although it's the same construction. To overcome this ambiguity, loadbanging in dynamic patching is an explicit action: You have to initiate the loadbangs at an appropriate time that you decide on your own. Ususally it's fine to do that by sending a loadbang message at the end of your dynamic patching cycle, to the same receiver. This way also the execution order of the construct you've build will be preserved in execution of the loadbangs and initialisation. When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? There are no official help patches for dynamic patching, only the tutorial floating around somewhere, which I can't find ATM. The loadbang explanation should probably be inside of this, if it isn't already. I think I need to add the term official to the (probably unofficial*) Pd glossary. What does it mean? I.e., what information are you trying to convey by using it? -Jonathan * It uses dynamic patching + an external Ciao -- Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ __footils.org__ -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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 -- Andy Farnell padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad. I don't. I know that you are probably just referring to the fact that it affects performance and recomputes the DSP graph. But that would be the same to call a gamedev and say: don't create assets dynamically, create them all at game start - which is insane, there is a wide number of stuff in a lot of engines that force a recompile of blob-trees, meshes, and other 3d-data-structures, but it always depends on the amount of data and the frequency of those calls. imho, it really should be limited for patch creation. imho no. Depends on the situation, maybe you can say that you've seen people overdo-it. (I haven't) As far as my experience, It suits what I need. I have patches that create modules on user demand (for audio processing, and so forth), and there is no need to create them in advance (although it is possible and then just manage them later with dynamic routing) but performance falls well under my needs so I apply dynamic patching in realtime. I'd like to hear you out on this matter, maybe several situations could not apply to d. patching in rt, thus it is good to learn. Best regards, Pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:07 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net wrote: Le 19/02/2011 20:58, John Harrison a écrit : Cyrille I just tried your solution and the problem is that all objects sharing the name of the dynamically-created object all get the loadbang message. yes. you should create them all in the same time, and then send the loadbang. if this is not possible, you can still : -use different name on your object -use argument on the abstraction and send to bang to a [receive loadbang-$1] object inside your abstraction -use initbang -use a [oneshot] object (or similar) after the loadbang anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad. imho, it really should be limited for patch creation. c On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Pedro Lopes pedro.lo...@ist.utl.ptmailto: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? It helps a lot those getting inside pd. Best, pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net mailto: c...@chnry.net wrote: hello, yes, this is known. you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your exemple. (don't know about initbang, i don't use it) c Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit : is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt mailto:pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
On 02/19/2011 08:49 PM, Pedro Lopes wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? it is a feature, not a bug. please consult the mailing list archives for why it makes sense for loadbang to behave like it does. fgadmr IOhannes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
Yeah, if its the logical behaviour of the class: ok. As i said, comment withdrawn. I agree with Mathieu, I'll just use one of the unsupported stuff out there. 2011/2/20 IOhannes zmölnig zmoel...@iem.at On 02/19/2011 08:49 PM, Pedro Lopes wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? it is a feature, not a bug. please consult the mailing list archives for why it makes sense for loadbang to behave like it does. fgadmr IOhannes ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Pedro Lopes wrote: Yeah, if its the logical behaviour of the class: ok. As i said, comment withdrawn. There's a [loadbang] class of objects, but we're talking about a collection of methods all named loadbang : one in class [loadbang], one in class canvas ([pd], abstractions, main patches), and then, one in [bng], one in [tgl], etc. The relationship between all those loadbang methods could be called a protocol : the loadbang protocol is the description of how loadbanging is supposed to be working in pd, overall. (This concept of protocol is also called interface or contract : it depends on which book you use, to learn about programme design.) ___ | Mathieu Bouchard tél: +1.514.383.3801 Villeray, Montréal, QC ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John #N canvas 854 533 450 300 10; #X obj 214 80 loadbang; #X obj 216 119 print loadbang; #X obj 100 79 initbang; #X obj 102 118 print initbang; #X connect 0 0 1 0; #X connect 2 0 3 0; #N canvas 538 60 879 604 10; #N canvas 387 681 450 300 creation_pool 1; #X restore 601 431 pd creation_pool; #X obj 415 370 s pd-creation_pool; #X msg 405 325 obj 10 20 test; #X connect 2 0 1 0; ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
I've tested you patch, happens here too. But I'm no expert in this behavior. :) p.s.: The help patch on loadbang states that a bang is sent when the patch is loaded. Is it a semantic issue? Patch vs. abstraction? or merely a problem.. 'Cause initbang bangs. 2011/2/19 John Harrison johnharrison...@gmail.com is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
hello, yes, this is known. you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your exemple. (don't know about initbang, i don't use it) c Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit : is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list test-do.pd Description: application/puredata ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? It helps a lot those getting inside pd. Best, pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net wrote: hello, yes, this is known. you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your exemple. (don't know about initbang, i don't use it) c Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit : is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ 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 -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
Cyrille I just tried your solution and the problem is that all objects sharing the name of the dynamically-created object all get the loadbang message. On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Pedro Lopes pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? It helps a lot those getting inside pd. Best, pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net wrote: hello, yes, this is known. you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your exemple. (don't know about initbang, i don't use it) c Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit : is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ 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 -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
Le 19/02/2011 20:49, Pedro Lopes a écrit : yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? no, it's not considered as a bug. When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? dynamic patching is not officially supported. if issues are discovered (and by this i mean bug), they should be post on the bug tracker, to be corrected. c It helps a lot those getting inside pd. Best, pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net mailto:c...@chnry.net wrote: hello, yes, this is known. you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your exemple. (don't know about initbang, i don't use it) c Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit : is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt mailto:pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ 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
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
Le 19/02/2011 20:58, John Harrison a écrit : Cyrille I just tried your solution and the problem is that all objects sharing the name of the dynamically-created object all get the loadbang message. yes. you should create them all in the same time, and then send the loadbang. if this is not possible, you can still : -use different name on your object -use argument on the abstraction and send to bang to a [receive loadbang-$1] object inside your abstraction -use initbang -use a [oneshot] object (or similar) after the loadbang anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad. imho, it really should be limited for patch creation. c On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Pedro Lopes pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt mailto:pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt wrote: yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? It helps a lot those getting inside pd. Best, pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net mailto:c...@chnry.net wrote: hello, yes, this is known. you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your exemple. (don't know about initbang, i don't use it) c Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit : is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt mailto:pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
uhhh not officially supported sounds great. Okay, didn't knew that position. Comment withdrawn. Best, Pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:01 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net wrote: Le 19/02/2011 20:49, Pedro Lopes a écrit : yes, this is known. By known you mean.. Is it on the bug tracker already? no, it's not considered as a bug. When such things are discovered (and by things I mean issues), shouldn't they be documented inside the help patches? dynamic patching is not officially supported. if issues are discovered (and by this i mean bug), they should be post on the bug tracker, to be corrected. c It helps a lot those getting inside pd. Best, pedro On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:44 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net mailto: c...@chnry.net wrote: hello, yes, this is known. you have to explicitly send the loadbang, like in this patch, using your exemple. (don't know about initbang, i don't use it) c Le 19/02/2011 20:33, John Harrison a écrit : is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. -- John ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt mailto:pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Lopes (MSc) contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes / http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | http://twitter.com/plopesresearch ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Pedro Lopes wrote: uhhh not officially supported sounds great. Okay, didn't knew that position. Comment withdrawn. Ah, btw, you have to know what official means in the pd world. GUI classes outside of Pd are all using unofficial, unsupported APIs. It's been like that for over ten years. All that time, people have been bundling g_canvas.h with their externals because Pd distributions don't come with that file, because it's unofficial. That's what unofficial means around here : without unofficial APIs, you can hardly get anything done. ___ | Mathieu Bouchard tél: +1.514.383.3801 Villeray, Montréal, QC ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, John Harrison wrote: is it correct behavior that loadbang will not be called when it is part of a dynamically created object? See attached. If you load test-do, it will create an instance of test when you click on the message. Test should print loadbang and initbang, but it only prints initbang. initbang is called when your [test] abstraction is finished loading. loadbang is called when your [test] abstraction's parent is finished loading. in the case of dynamic patching, you're supposed to know when you're finished instantiating, and then call loadbang by yourself. If your dynamic patching is incremental, you may use [gf/canvas_loadbang] with [gf/canvas_count], to send loadbang only to the new objects (and not to those that are supposed to have already received loadbang). ___ | Mathieu Bouchard tél: +1.514.383.3801 Villeray, Montréal, QC ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] loadbang not sent for dynamically created objects?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:07 PM, cyrille henry c...@chnry.net wrote: anyway, i think using dynamic creation in real time is bad. imho, it really should be limited for patch creation. Hi Cyrille, can you explain better your position please? I have been using dynamic patching in real time a lot in my works and I didn't noticed big problems. It's more: it will be very hard to me realize some programming without using dynamic creation at all. So i'm just curious. saluts husk -- when Art become pratical we call it technology. When Technology become useless we call it Art www.estereotips.net ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
