Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
fully support this work. I am not sure about the .pd suffix issue. Isn't that the distinction between subpatches' and abstractions'
yes, that's the main problem is see (or at least: this is the point where i expect problems if there are any)
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?
Ciao