[PD] local arrays again...
degoyon at freesurf.fr
Wed Aug 15 23:50:38 CEST 2001
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 :
building patch = build objects + expand their arguments
not : expand (objects+arguments) + build them
rem : this would be a too severe patch.
$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.
More information about the Pd-list