Does this happen for all receives for abstractions or only ones which also contain the relative pathname?
Will this break old patches that communicate with a subpatch?
[pd array]
[vis 1< | [s pd-array]
Now I can't remember if its abstractions or subpatches that require the .pd extension... I guess they should be all consistant.
,b,
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
but probably there is no way around.
so i have re-submitted a patch to the patch-tracker. the new version now appends ".pd" to the receiver-name (using the pd-function addfileextent() which i just stumbled across and which seems to do what i need)
so now [foo/bar] will bind to "pd-foo/bar.pd" (and for compatibility to "pd-bar.pd".
currently ".pd" is always suffixed (regardless of the actual file-extension). probably this could be done in a cleaner (more complicated) way, that respects the actual file-extension.
so this should fix most concerns.
the new patch is called "bind2classname.pd.diff" and i deleted the old one (which, btw, contained leftovers like m_class.c~...)
mfg.adsr. IOhannes
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev