--- On Wed, 8/25/10, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoe...@iem.at> wrote:

With mouse and cut messages, yes. With your objects, no. What happens?

Both Max and Pd's [loadbang] objects are a way to automate things without user interaction-- at _load_ time. Unless there is currently a way to imagine a patch into existence, one has to build a patch through interaction with Pd (or build the patch that dynamically builds a patch). In the course of doing so one probably wants to test that particular object chain. In Pd, you add an extra [bng] and connect it to whatever the [loadbang] connects to (or use the File->Message window but that takes longer and triggers any other [loadbang] in the patch). In Max, you add nothing-- you just double-click [loadbang]. It takes less time to add nothing than it does to add something, so in Max you save time when testing your [loadbang] patch.

I know it's a small amount of effort saved, but small amounts of effort start to add up over time, like [t b 0], having anchors to resize GUI objects with the mouse (like [entry]), etc.

It's certainly missing, in the sense of, "If it were there, I would certainly use it." But given the difficulty of just advocating for [initbang], which has been around for years and (I find) necessary, I'm not sure I want to push for or code an addition to [loadbang] that merely adds a convenience.

Also, if you roll too many of your own in Pd, you end up doing so at the expense of portability. I don't want to send a library of my hacks to standard objects with every patch I show to someone else.

-Jonathan