[PD] Multiple (same) instances, and [sssad]

[geiger]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Yes, that's no problem. Btw: With "$1-tags" it also is possible to use
> the same tag for different instances of an abstraction so that they
> share the same settings which is very useful for dealing with
> polyphony.

Yes, actually the format should be like

MAIN/1/abs/3/subabs/4, then sending the data to

MAIN/1/abs/3/subabs would set all abstraction of that name in that patch.

>
> > Also, if you add the abstraction at the beginning, the whole
> > data will be shifted one abstraction.
>
> Urgh ...  ;)
>
> Urgh++ ;) ;)
>
> > Anyhow, not too different from adding and removing inlets and outlets.
>
> inlets and outlets are the only thing in Pd where position really
> matters (ignoring internals like connections for now), and that's
> already a little problem, although we got used to it.

I do not think its a problem, but thats probably only me.

> But you may
> remember proposals by Matju IIRC to introduce inlet arguments to
> specify which inlet should be at which position. I think, that was an
> idea carried over from jMax.

Yes, and I was against it because I am used to the ordering done
in Pd. I think unless you make real user studies this is personal taste.
(but then, who believes in user studies :)

> Anyways I generally prefer the explicit approach Pd uses most of the
> time. Two patches that print the same should also behave the same and
> that isn't the case anymore if we rely on position alone to load data.

Not sure, because the patches behave the same, just the data is different,
and you can also see this in the printout. The semantics is simple and
not very different from the one that you use with the naming.

data abs/1 goes to the first abstraction called [abs]

data foo1 goes to the first abstraction [abs foo1]

actually it is even clearer in the first case, where you have the name
of the abstraction where the data goes to included automatically.
With your scheme you have to make sure that there is not another foo1
anywhere in the patch .. and beware there is one ...

Urghhhhh :)))

>
> How did [state] handle this?
>

this didn't get handled by state, one had to use $1 to name states
differently.

Günter