[PD] static array/text

[Liam Goodacre]

Seems like the "value behaviour" is something that could be implemented in [array define] with a new flag, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the [array] objects already have [value] like behavior, in that you can have multiple objects referencing the same array. The difference is that with [value], the reference is implicit while with [array] it is explicit (ie. [array define]).

The only thing a flag could do would be to tell [array define] to accept the first instance of a particular argument and reject the rest. But this would lead to a lot of confusion since you could have lots of empty [array define]'s scattered around the place.

The best solution is surely to put the array in a parent patch of the abstraction. If you don't mind putting it there yourself, you can do as Ingo suggested. If you want it to happen automatically, then there are neat dynamic patching solutions available.

________________________________
From: Pd-list <pd-list-bounces at lists.iem.at> on behalf of Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>
Sent: 07 May 2018 15:46
To: Pd-list
Subject: Re: [PD] static array/text

Seems like the "value behaviour" is something that could be implemented in [array define] with a new flag, right?

2018-05-07 10:19 GMT-03:00 Antoine Rousseau <antoine at metalu.net<mailto:antoine at metalu.net>>:
In moonlib you can find [sarray] and [slist], which implement the [value] behaviour (i.e multiple declarations of a shared data) for array and list of symbols.
They are also dynamically re-assignable.


Antoine Rousseau
  http://www.metalu.net<http://metalu.net> __ http://www.metaluachahuter.com/<http://www.metaluachahuter.com/compagnies/al1-ant1/>


2018-05-07 13:47 GMT+02:00 Ingo Stock <mail at ingostock.de<mailto:mail at ingostock.de>>:
Maybe you can just put the text/array object into the main file, like in
the attached demo?

best, ingo


On 05/07/2018 12:02 AM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> Is there one way to define a "static" table or text data that can be
> shared among abstractions? I have a few abstractions which use lookup
> tables and I realize now that they are basically creating a copy with
> each instance when they could really share the same data directly. I
> suppose this would be somewhat related to [value].
>
> --------
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
> danomatika.com<http://danomatika.com> <http://danomatika.com>
> robotcowboy.com<http://robotcowboy.com> <http://robotcowboy.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at<mailto:Pd-list at lists.iem.at> mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>

_______________________________________________
Pd-list at lists.iem.at<mailto:Pd-list at lists.iem.at> mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list



_______________________________________________
Pd-list at lists.iem.at<mailto: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/20180507/669641c8/attachment-0001.html>