[PD] dynamic-named arrays
t.grill at gmx.net
Fri Oct 3 11:48:40 CEST 2003
you are right, but i'm not talking about changing the current behavior (and
breaking things), but rather extending it.
There could for example be $$0-$$9 parameters which relate to the subpatch
parameters, not to the ones of an abstraction.
Pix is also right, stating that one could also make an abstraction every
time such a behavior is needed, but i'd rather have it easier to handle.
Additionally, in PD i also often miss the distinction between $0-$9 and
#0-#9 that Max has, the first being message parameters and the latter ones
being abstraction arguments... but i understand that it might be too late
for introducing that in PD.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Barknecht" <fbar at footils.org>
To: <pd-list at iem.at>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: [PD] dynamic-named arrays
> Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote:
> > > This is a common misunderstanding: argument passing *does not work*
> > > for subpatches ("pd something"), it only works for abstractions
> > it's true but it would be a great feature to have that.
> But an uncompatible one! And I'm not sure if it actually would be
> great. I do rely on this very often and on the character of a [pd
> subpatch], that it is just a curtain to hide things from view, but
> that it has no semantic meaning at all.
> I like having the arguments of the surrounding abstraction available
> inside the subpatch without further work. Also it is important to be
> able to $0-send through subpatch borders, but not through
> abstraction-borders. I see a subpatch as a full part of the patch that
> just isn't visible (or is, through GOP!)
> Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.at
More information about the Pd-list