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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Tue, 10/5/10, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:

> From: IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> Subject: Re: [PD] namecanvas obsolete? Why? Re:  Dynamic Graph on Parent
> To: pd-list at iem.at
> Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 12:10 PM
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 10/04/2010 12:42 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > 
> > Though this fulfills brandon's requirements, it still
> doesn't 
> > obsolete [namecanvas].  There are some things you
> can do 
> > with dynamic patching and mouse messages that rely on
> namecanvas 
> 
> how do they rely on properties of [namecanvas] that cannot
> be done with
> [sendcanvas]?

Actually, I take that back-- I forgot that I could just use a [s]/[r] 
pair with the [r] going to the [sendcanvas] object.  So yes, as far as 
I can tell, if [sendcanvas] were an internal object it would obsolete 
[namecanvas].

> 
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
> 
> 
> PS: and you are aware that your not-pretty tricks won't
> work if the
> patch-window is not opened...

Yep.  I'm just "vis 1"-ing one patch-window, cutting an object, 
then "vis 0"-ing it, and I never see the open patch-window.

-Jonathan

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkyq+bMACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvS5GwCghp7G1mr2ogxtjk/Q2ieN8ETz
> kd8Ani6I3BZOIVMV9Dt7qEfUStDcD48/
> =A5tv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at
> mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>