[PD-dev] representing parent patch levels as args
hans at eds.org
Tue Dec 9 16:18:23 CET 2008
On Dec 9, 2008, at 3:37 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
>>> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>> So I am just adding support to canvas_name and window_name for
>>>> getting the names from other canvases besides the current one,
>>>> i.e. parent, toplevel, etc.
>>>> I am using the now standard numeric notation that is used in
>>>> [getdir], iemguts, getdollarzero, etc.
>>> Care to give a brief description of that for those that don't
>>> know? I'd be interested in adding something similar to pdlua,
>>> so that .pd_lua(x) files can access the path(s) of their
>>> containing patch(es), would make sense to have the same numbers.
>> 0 = current patch
>> 1 = parent
>> 2 = parent's parent
>> One question I have is about the behavior when you specific more
>> levels than exist. Like [canvas_name 999999]. Should that be an
>> error, warning? Should it give the toplevel? nothing? I am
>> guessing it should give the toplevel, with a warning.
> in iemguts it gives nothing and no warning.
> however, you get an implicit, programmatic warning: no result from
> the object means that the specified parent was illegal.
> it is up to the user to print out an error message.
I think it should give a warning since it is similar to asking for a
filename that doesn't exist. Or maybe there should be something to
represent that it didn't get a result, since it is difficult to test
to see that nothing happened in Pd while trivially easy to respond to
events. This could be a second status outlet or maybe special keyword.
>> Agreed, I think a limited set of names, like "parent", "toplevel"
>> and maybe "current" just to make things explicit. I forgot I had
>> already implemented this, except for the "parent" and "toplevel"
> how's that done in tot? iirc something like "."?
> which would give us:
> but anyhow, i don't see a real reason for "current" and
> "parent" (but have no strong opinion about the latter; the former
> seems much like an overkill to me)
> the only useful thing i could think of is "toplevel".
> but then, the concept of "toplevel" is rather alien to me:
> everything is patches/abstractions. i don't want my patch behave
> differently just because i have created it as an abstraction within
> a toplevel patch instead of a toplevel patch itself.
> this is also the reason why i don't fully understand the concept of
> [declare] yet (roman probably agrees with me here).
Hmm, that's a good point. Perhaps just the numbers and names are
> apart from that, i also have an idea to share:
> how about the possibility to modify the parent-dept via arguments.
> something like [canvas_name 2+$1]
> (definitely not this syntax, it's just to illustrate my idea)
> i haven't come up with a real use-case, though...
I think this is a good idea, but should just use standard Pd syntax,
no need for anything special:
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to
realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either
change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
More information about the Pd-dev