Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Cesare Marilungo hat gesagt: // Cesare Marilungo wrote:
No. Because the state is saved in the patch which use the abstraction.
But which state should be saved if you edit an abstraction itself?
Ciao
You mean if you open it from inside a patch which use the abstraction? Well... uhm... :-[
I'm tempted to answer that if you open an abstraction, and you modify it (even adding object and repatching other objects) you need to save the abstraction for the main patch to acknowledge it as it has been changed. You're saving the state of the abstraction itself. But for me an abstraction is like a function in a library. I don't need to edit it in everyday use. To me it should be like a built-in object. If I need to abstract a part of a patch on-the-fly there's the subpatch thing.
Anyway, I'm not proposing to change how Pd behaves. At least for me, there's nothing more we need in this area. I don't even feel the need to have presets since for me the patch itself is the preset. Presets are useful if you want to distribute something like a soft synth or any other instrument or effect that mimics some hardware counterpart. And you know better than me that we already have the tools to do this.
So what was Miller thinking about when he mentioned this general state-saving mechanism? And how come you don't use the 'init' functionalty of gui objects? For me it is so useful.
c.