dollar signs and subpatches (was Re: [PD] Local "variable" names question + messages)
barknech at ph-cip.uni-koeln.de
Tue Aug 20 21:00:22 CEST 2002
David N G McCallum hat gesagt: // David N G McCallum wrote:
> The reason that I bring this all up is that if I want to do
> repetitive tasks in a patch without using external abstractions I would
> just like to create a subpatch that I can copy/paste with different
In my view, to copy/paste with different arguments is a case for an
abstraction. Subpatches are there to hide things and to share the
sends and receives of the surrounding patch even when using $0-named
sends. I rely on this fact quite often.
Especially with regard to the $0-variables subpatches are invaluable
the way they are. $0 is mostly used for local variables, sends and
receives. They are not seen in an abstraction, that has its own $0, but
they are seen in a subpatch. Also the $1, $2, ... variables of a
surrounding patch are seen in the subpatch right away, but they don't
mess around in an abstraction, that keeps its own set of $1, $2, ...
There are usages for both and I'm glad, that subpatches and
abstractions are different in this regard. Where I want to send local
in a patch but still want to reach hidden receives, I use a subpatch,
and where I don't want this I use an abstraction.
Instead of changing the subpatch behaviour I would much rather like
all sends and receives to be local, because almost all my s and r
names start with $0-...
What about this?
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
More information about the Pd-list