[PD] local arrays again...

[Yves Degoyon]

Michal Seta wrote:

>
>
> Attached is a solution to your problem (note that I added adc~ for testing).
> Lemme know if it works...
>

What you did works fine, thanks a lot !!!


>
> Also, in this case you don't need to add arguments your abstractions as your
> arrays get named automatically.
>
> However, I don't know of a way of supplying creation arguments to messages
> (is there a way???) so your message will not work as you expected.
> Therefore, AFAIK, the bang to the [openpanel] will not work as expected (in
> fact, when I was playing with this pd has returned an error saying "inlet:
> no method for symbol".  I moved the openpanel into the abstraction (I did
> that while replying to the message so this change is not  in the attachment,
> should I have included it?) and then it worked when sending bang into the
> inlet).  So my suggestion is to make an argument $1-bigsample where you
> supply an argument and everything gets named after that argument (you gave
> an argument anyways...) and you can use that little trick with
> symbol->makefilename to make sure the message gets sent properly.  If
> there's a more elegant way of doing this I'd be interested in it.
>

Still, 2 features are surprising to me :

a/

building patch = build objects + expand their arguments

not : expand (objects+arguments) + build them

rem : this would be a too severe patch.

b/

$n means :

"nth patch argument in an object"
"nth run-time incoming value in a message"

this would be clearer to me if creation
arguments would be referred as "$$n" or "£n",
but this would break a lot of patches, right ??

So, keep things this way.

Thanks for your very fast reply.

Regards,

Yves Degoyon.