[PD] GUI toolkits and custom GUIs WAS: Integra Live 1.5 released

[Bill Gribble]

The case you describe is the easy one, once you introduce any kind of lexical hygiene.  Names in use in a patch bind closely to the patch or scope in which they are used, so there's no danger of escapes from a patch just because its being used within another patch. 

At the same time, references to names that can't be resolved in the local scope do bubble up, so you can have more global names if you need them.

Thanks,
Bill Gribble

On Jan 25, 2013, at 21:27, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Bill Gribble <grib at billgribble.com>
>> To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton at gmail.com>; "pd-list at iem.at" <pd-list at iem.at>
>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PD] GUI toolkits and custom GUIs WAS: Integra Live 1.5 released
>> 
>> On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 15:21 -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>>> From: Bill Gribble <grib at billgribble.com>
>>>> I am working on a pd-clone intended to explore a lot of the topics in
>> this 
>>>> thread.  It's not fully baked yet -- the biggest working patch is
>> a biquad 
>>>> filter designer with pole-zero and freq response plotting -- but
>> I'm 
>>>> particularly excited about the approach to namespacing and scope
>> management, 
>>>> which works a lot like hc describes.  Patches have a set of scopes
>> which can be 
>>>> mapped onto subpatches (represented as layers, not separate windows). 
>> Name 
>>>> resolution in send/receive elements works like you would want it to.
>>> 
>>> How does scope work for abstractions?
>> 
>> Well, every object in a patch has a name.  To find that object, the tree
>> of patches and scopes is crawled upward from the site of the lookup. For
>> example, the (equivalent of) [s "foo"] first looks in the scope of the
>> [s], then the patch-global scope of the containing patch, then in the
>> application global scope for the name "foo". 
>> 
>> Dotted notation can drill down, so [s "foo.bar"] would try to find an
>> object named "foo", then find "bar" in its patch-global 
>> scope (or an
>> object named "bar" within a scope named "foo" in the current 
>> patch). 
>> 
>> Does that make sense?
> 
> I don't think I understand it.
> 
> Let's say I have abstraction [blah].  I want [s foo] and [r foo] inside [blah] and
> all of [blah]'s children to talk to each other.  Then I want to share my abstraction
> with Bob who needn't worry about the send/receive names I used inside [blah]
> because they are guaranteed not to conflict with anything he does outside the
> scope of the [blah] abstraction (e.g., creating a [s foo] on the same canvas where
> a [blah] object sits).
> 
> Can I specify the scope of the s/r symbol in this way?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Gribble  
>>