On Jan 14, 2006, at 1:02 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
abstractions require the .pd extension. with the 2nd patch i submitted a ".pd" is appended to the canvas-receiver of an _abstraction_. the "new" (currently: additional, but see the other mails on this topic) canvas-receiver consists of the classname (== relative-pathname + filename). there is no check whether the classname (how you call the object) contains a relative (or even absolute) pathname.
What's the use of being able to contact one (and only one) instance of an abstraction via a receive-symbol?
do i guess this is a rhetoric question? btw, my patch does not contact one (and only one) _instance_ of an abstraction, but _all_ instances.
How do I know which instance I am contacting?
you don't. that is the nature of send. you do not know who is listening. (but of course you know that)
And then, why is [namecanvas] marked as obsolete?
well, i keep asking this question since several years. (since i first discovered that [namecanvas] is marked obsolete.
Funny these two came in the same email. I was wondering what [namecanvas] provides beyond the automatically declared canvas-receiver. [namecanvas] would allow you to easily send messages to instances of an abstraction using [namecanvas $0-canvas]. Then you have to track $0 for each instance so you know what's what.
That's enough of a reason to keep [namecanvas] around.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. -David Zicarelli