[PD] namecanvas obsolete? Why? Re: Dynamic Graph on Parent

Mathieu Bouchard matju at artengine.ca
Thu Sep 30 13:59:10 CEST 2010


On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, brandon zeeb wrote:

> According to [namecanvas] help, this object is obsolete?  How else can 
> one send a message to one and only one abstraction without using 
> namecanvas?

I repeated this over and over for years, but Miller isn't listening. He 
won't listen to you either.

If [namecanvas] ever disappears, it will be replaced by 10 externals of 
the same name within the next 10 minutes, because people really need it. 
And it will be a relief because it won't be written "OBSOLETE" all over 
them.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> "iemguts" kind of introduces a concept of "this".

It's not a concept of "this" as brandon wants it because it's not a 
receive-symbol. In iemguts, what is being used is a number that is the 
number of canvases to be climbed up the hierarchy : so, to get from a 
subpatch of a subpatch of an abstraction, to the parent of the 
abstraction, it takes the number 3.

GridFlow has several iemguts-like classes introduced in late 2009, which 
use this same numbering, but there's no replacement of [namecanvas].

> most of the objects work on either "this" or "parent of this" or some 
> other "direct ancestor of this".

I'm beginning to see uses for accessing a "child of this" with 
iemguts-like externals, but it just can't be done with that numbering 
scheme, so, I'm still not doing it.

  _______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ------------------------------ Villeray, Montréal, QC


More information about the Pd-list mailing list