[PD] settable receive again
Jonathan Wilkes
jancsika at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 10 19:20:06 CEST 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com>
> To: zmoelnig at iem.at
> Cc: pd-list at iem.at
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [PD] settable receive again
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:10 AM, <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>:
>>>>
>>>> [s parent-$0-$1]
>>>> [r parent-$0-$1]
>>>
>>>
>>> That probably wasn't clear. I don't want [symbol
> parent-$0-$1]; inside my
>>> abstractions I want the parent $0 prefixed to $1 as the symbol. In
> other
>>> words, my abstractions make it so that I don't have to type
> "$0-" in every
>>> s/r pair where I want canvas locality which as I said is most of the
> cases
>>> by far. (My abstractions do other stuff which I wrote about in the
>>> nonlocal
>>> scope thread, but that isn't important to this discussion.)
>>
>>
>> are you talking about canvas-locality (something Pd has no constructs for),
>> patch-locality ($0), or hierarchical locality (something like [block~]
> does,
>> and which many text-based languages do, e.g. {int foo; if(2>1){float
> foo; /*
>> ... */ } }
>>
>> also, do you want to be able to build abstractions that have the same
>> property?
>>
>>>
>>
>
> One other thing I'm not clear on - is the point to have a convenient
> way to ensure locality at patch init, or do you want settable receive
> while the patch is running? The latter would provide the former,
> obviously, but I wonder if the latter is actually germane to the
> original complaint. (The latter would also be in most ways
> conceptually the same as dynamic patching connections while the patch
> is running...)
For the purposes of this constrained example-- where I'm _only_ concerned
with my abstraction that takes $1 and prepends the parent's "$0-" to it--
I have the receive set by loadbang.
In my example from the "nonlocal message passing scope" thread I might
have added a 2nd inlet to reset the symbol, but that's irrelevant here. The
main point is that the question "why would you ever want a settable receive"
has a clear answer, and in this example it's much preferable to the alternatives.
-Jonathan
>
> Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list