--- On Tue, 10/5/10, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
From: IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] namecanvas obsolete? Why? Re: Dynamic Graph on Parent To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 12:10 PM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/04/2010 12:42 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Though this fulfills brandon's requirements, it still
doesn't
obsolete [namecanvas]. There are some things you
can do
with dynamic patching and mouse messages that rely on
namecanvas
how do they rely on properties of [namecanvas] that cannot be done with [sendcanvas]?
Actually, I take that back-- I forgot that I could just use a [s]/[r] pair with the [r] going to the [sendcanvas] object. So yes, as far as I can tell, if [sendcanvas] were an internal object it would obsolete [namecanvas].
fgmasdr IOhannes
PS: and you are aware that your not-pretty tricks won't work if the patch-window is not opened...
Yep. I'm just "vis 1"-ing one patch-window, cutting an object, then "vis 0"-ing it, and I never see the open patch-window.
-Jonathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkyq+bMACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvS5GwCghp7G1mr2ogxtjk/Q2ieN8ETz kd8Ani6I3BZOIVMV9Dt7qEfUStDcD48/ =A5tv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list