[PD] $0-abstraction question

[Johan Ericsson]

Thanks Liam! That sounds very promising. I'll give it a go! Cheers

Skickat från min iPhone

> 8 apr 2016 kl. 19:03 skrev Liam Goodacre <liamg_uw at hotmail.com>:
> 
> One solution is to give each abstraction instance its own ID number from within the patch, bypassing $0. Ie. if you do this:
> 
> [loadbang]
> |
> [value load] x [+ 1]
> |
> [s $0-my-number]
> 
> you will generate unique numbers (1, 2, 3...) for each instance, according to creation order.
> 
> Things get complicated here when you decide to delete one of the instances and then save the patch--all of the subsequent numbers will be off when you re-load. You can probably get around this by having them all re-calculate every time one is loaded.
> 
> 
> > From: monologx at gmail.com
> > Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:36:54 +0200
> > To: pd-list at lists.iem.at
> > Subject: [PD] $0-abstraction question
> > 
> > Dear List,
> > 
> > This is my first time writing here so please be gentle. :-)
> > I'm working on a state saving system in vanilla for multiple instances of the same abstraction. I've got a good system up and running where I'm writing and reading to textfile using numerical creation arguments for the abstractions to separate the textfiles from each other. However, it would be a lot easier if the unique four digit $0 digits of the abstraction was saved with the .pd-file and not given a new number on re-booting the patch. There is probably a million scenarios where this behaviour would be not desired that I'm unaware of. But it would be nice to be able to skip giving the abstraction an argument on creation. 
> > 
> > All best / Johan
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160408/9418d233/attachment.html>