<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/27/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Frank Barknecht</b> <<a href="mailto:fbar@footils.org">fbar@footils.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
What I would do is to move the array out of the abstraction into the<br>parent and pass its name as abstraction argument. Example:<br><br>This is in abstract.pd:<br><br> [tabread $1]<br><br>and in parent.pd you pass the array name into $1:
<br><br> [table t1]<br> [abstract t1]<br><br> [table t2]<br> [abstract t2]<br><br> [table t3]<br> [abstract t3]<br><br> [table t4]<br> [abstract t4]</blockquote><div><br>i did consider that actually, but then thought that it would make the abstraction less of a "black box" because the parent needs to know something about it's inner workings (that it requires an array).
<br><br>its good to know that that's the only way though, so that i'm doing it because i have to, not because there is something about pd i dont know (if you see what i mean...)<br><br>thanks,<br>pete.<br></div><br>
</div><br>