Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Hm, it indeed might become a problem. I'm already very careful with subpatch names and protect them with $0 wherever possible from becoming an unintended target, because I use data structures and thus "pd-x" receivers a lot (including the "clear" message of course), also in abstractions where I cannot see the subpatch's name immediatly.
As abstractions cannot use $0 in their name, they cannot be protected this way. I guess I would prefer to keep the .pd in the receiver because of this. I probably will never be extra careful with sending "clear" to something ending in ".pd".
Or am I misunderstanding your change?
no i fear you are quite right. i guess there really should be a separation between subpatches (esp. with data-structures) and abstractions. the main point why i didn't do it was, because i did not want to generate _another_ symbol (when loading an abstraction [foo/bar] pd automatically generates the symbols "foo/bar", "bar.pd", and "/path/to/my/foo") but probably there is no way around.
btw, does foo.pat bind to "pd-foo.pat"? (i think so).
mfg.adr IOhannes