[PD] re: namecanvas - why deprecated?

Matteo Sisti Sette matteo.sistisette at email.it
Fri Feb 9 23:43:47 CET 2007

Frank Barknecht wrote

> Try:
>  [clear(
>  |
>  [s $0something]
> That's why [namecanvas] is not the final word on the functionality it
> provides.

I don't understand what you mean. If you mean because it makes PD crash,
then try this:

[s pd-whateverthisfileiscalled.pd]

with no use of [namecanvas]. This crashes too.

> Actually I don't understand why people are so in love with
> [namecanvas]. In five or six years of using Pd, I've never written a
> patch with it.

The question is why people are so in love with sending messages to a canvas. 
I am not either.
But if we admit that we "have the right" to send message to a canvas, then 
namecanvas is the only way to have
(the main canvas of) an instance of an abstraction be assigned a unique 
name, not shared with other instances.

The workaround of creating a subpatch (which you may call $0- or 
$1-something) is ok if all the dynamically generated stuff is "processing 
stuff", but what if we are dinamically generating interface elements? It is 
not irrelevant to have to go one level deeper in the patch tree to get a 
piece of interface visible. I can think of real-life scenarios... 

More information about the Pd-list mailing list