[PD] Calling a canvas names [was: Re: syntax of Pd files]

Luke Iannini (pd) lukexipd at gmail.com
Fri Oct 19 05:41:21 CEST 2007

> Actually it occured to me that this is a silly argument, which I could
> only bring up, because I'm living proof that creating non-trivial Pd
> patches for 6 years is possible without ever using namecanvas once.

One could also create non-trivial Pd patches for 6 years and not use data
structures once (or even DSP objects), this does not mean they are useless :

It's silly, because of course one would normally not want to clear the
> main canvas of an abstraction altogether as that would also clear the
> logic to fill the canvas again, and this logic generally would be in
> the abstraction itself.
> > This restriction leads to really ugly workarounds.
> Second silly argument: dynamically patching an abstracion instance
> would still be ugly even when namcanvas was a property, as you'd still
> need to keep track of how many objects your logic (see above) contains
> and you would not be allowed to change it.

Ugly it may be but we've established that there are certain things that are
impossible without namecanvas, such as my most recent [msend]/[mreceive]
with variable inlets/outlets, or Chris McCormick's patches that do dynamic

Not to mention, look at this!

That would make it a lot less painful.  Even better would be allowing us to
assign identifiers to objects or groups of objects for stable
manipulation... but the above is a huge help.

So, I am very much in support of moving namecanvas to the canvas properties
window, and I hope we can agree that it is an essential feature (rereading,
maybe that is what you were trying to say after all, but I don't mind
campaigning for it anyways : ) ).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20071018/5c9a1a99/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list