however, i don't think it is a valid assumption for pd itself.
in this case, i would highly prefer an error-message to the console (an
"exception") and no destruction at all.
(since usually you have more complex settings when doing dynamic
patching, e.g. [clear, obj 0 0 inlet, obj 0 100 outlet, connect 0 0 1 0( )
"clear" alone may be fine in this case, but I suppose things get hairy
obviously this is just the simplest example i was able to think of.
what i was trying to illustrate is:
i expect [clear, obj 0 0 foo( to clear the entire canvas and then to
create an instance of [foo].
using your "delay" message for the "clear", would first create the [foo]
object and then delete the entire canvas (including [foo]).
of course i could delay the creation of [foo] too, but this would make
things over-complicated (imho) and klugdy.
i could also do the patching by hand or not use pd alltogether.
if you just delete a some objects using e.g. "find foo, cut", and then
create some new ones and try to connect them. Wouldn't the numbering
of objects necessary for [connect ...( be invalid now, too? At least
the bookkeeping would get even more difficult than it already is.
this is just another example that illustrates (imo), that the automatic
delay would not necessarily make things better.