[PD-dev] is namecanvas obsolete or not?
fbar at footils.org
Thu Dec 30 20:14:57 CET 2004
Tim Blechmann hat gesagt: // Tim Blechmann wrote:
> > I guess, I'd second this. If I use abstractions in a patch, then I see
> > these as being something rather static. They reside in the filesystem
> > and a change of one abstraction should mean a change in all other
> > instances, too. Subpatches however, especially those names with $0,
> yes and no ... for most applications i'm using abstractions with $X
> arguments ... but sometimes i want to have abstractions with slightly
> different behaviour related to the arguments ...
Yes, I can understand this, and I'd like Pd to be as flexible as
possible, too. However I can only think of one occasion, where
changing things inside a [pd $0-something] is not enough: Changing the
number of inlets and outlets. Everything else is possible to do inside
a named canvas created through subpatching, or isn't it?
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
More information about the Pd-dev