[PD] local arrays again...
mis at music.mcgill.ca
Thu Aug 16 15:17:33 CEST 2001
Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry for the confusion.
On 8/16/01 5:57 AM, "Sha Xin Wei" <xinwei at lcc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> hi michal,
> your explanantion is an explanaton not of class inheritance or of
> polymoprhism, but of a more traditional and universal programming
> language concept: scoping of variables. the scope of a variable is
> conventionally determined by the calling stock order of a function F,
> such that the variable can be read and written by functions called
> from inside F. if F has arguments, those arguments' values are also
> available to beread, of course. whether they can be modified
> depends on whether the arguments are passed by reference or by value
> to F.
> your explanation is fine, except for the label "object-oriented"
> which may murk the discussion a little :)
>> On 8/15/01 5:50 PM, "Yves Degoyon" <degoyon at freesurf.fr> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Sorry but I don't understand what you mean....
>> I will take a stab at it anyways and you tell me if I'm going in the right
>> It is a good habit, in OOP, to reuse classes/objects. PD is like an OOP
>> environment. Like in OOP you can take existing objects and build new
>> objects out of them (abstractions). Now, some objects don't require any
>> creation arguments and you can feed them messages or floats or whatever to
>> change parameters when you need them. Other objects (like tabwrite~ and
>> tabread~ in you example) need arguments. If you're building an abstraction
>> it's because you intend to reuse it at some point and perhaps even you will
>> several copies of it in the same patch (program). Things like tables
>> (arrays) and objects referring to them need unique names so by putting a
>> variable name you ensure that by providing a unique name to each INSTANCE of
>> your abstraction they will not get confused. So objects contained within
>> your abstraction INHERIT the arguments (is this what you mean by "expanding"
>> You will also want to use variable args in patches where you want control
>> the creation args of objects contained within. But if you're, say, building
>> a reverb and you have tested all parameters of delays and filters and you
>> know what you want you can simply give them the tested parameters and,
>> optionally, provide a way of tweeking it in real time. And that can be done
>> through inlets and float boxes, but that's too simple :) ... And too silly,
>> in fact. I find it efficient to communicate with my abstractions through
>> send-receive pairs so I end up giving my receives within abstractions
>> variable arguments so I can specify later which instance I am sending data
>> Am I making any sense?
>> But all this depends on what you're doing. You can put stuff into
>> subpatches and not worry about $n crap. For some things I don't even bother
>> making abstractions. But I do like reuse some ideas and some things I use
>> more than once in the same patch and that's when it's worth to put it into a
>> separate file and deal with it on that level.
>> Now I'm lost...
>>> $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 ??
>> I like to think of $n as a variable... I can understand your confusion if
>> you come from Max background where arguments and variables in messages are
>> different. But I like the simplicity of PD in this domain (if only a
>> variable name within an abstraction the message could also inherit the
>> creation argument...). So a variable is a variable regardless of where you
>> put/find it.
>> Just keep in mind that creation arguments are inherited only by objects
>> contained within your abstraction (which in turn is an object, too) and not
>> the messages.
>> Hope this helps a bit.
>> "To be is to do" - Socrates
>> "To do is to be" - Sartre
>> "Do be do be do" - Sinatra
>> "Just do it!" - NIKE
>> "It" - Stephen King
More information about the Pd-list