[PD] namecanvas: why deprecated?

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Jamie Bullock hat gesagt: // Jamie Bullock wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 07:52 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> 
> > > I can have a [namecanvas $0something] in it and so the message I would use
> > > would be
> > > 
> > > [obj etc etc(
> > > |
> > > [s $0something]
> > 
> > Try: 
> > 
> >  [clear(
> >  |
> >  [s $0something]
> > 
> > That's why [namecanvas] is not the final word on the functionality it
> > provides. 
> > 
> 
> Could you explain a bit more about this? I can't see how it relates to
> Matteo's question. 

If you have a [namecanvas named-abs] in a patch, and then send a [clear(
message to that namecanvas with [; named-abs clear( you will also
delete the [namecanvas named-abs] object. Then you will you not be
able to access this patch again, and additionally it's at least strange,
that an object - [namcavas named-abs] - is in fact destroying itself
here. 

If however you just want to do some dynamic patching, a subpatch is
just as powerful and it's much easier to handle. Just compare the old
and the new nqpoly4: The newer one using subpatches is more readable,
much less error-prone and much easier to extend or change (which led
to variations like [polypoly])

I can only think of a small handful of usecases where [namecanvas] is
actually necessary.

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__