Hi Frank, you are right, but i'm not talking about changing the current behavior (and breaking things), but rather extending it. There could for example be $$0-$$9 parameters which relate to the subpatch parameters, not to the ones of an abstraction. Pix is also right, stating that one could also make an abstraction every time such a behavior is needed, but i'd rather have it easier to handle. Additionally, in PD i also often miss the distinction between $0-$9 and #0-#9 that Max has, the first being message parameters and the latter ones being abstraction arguments... but i understand that it might be too late for introducing that in PD.
best greetings, Thomas
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Barknecht" fbar@footils.org To: pd-list@iem.at Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:51 AM Subject: Re: [PD] dynamic-named arrays
Hallo, Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote:
This is a common misunderstanding: argument passing *does not work* for subpatches ("pd something"), it only works for abstractions
it's true but it would be a great feature to have that.
But an uncompatible one! And I'm not sure if it actually would be great. I do rely on this very often and on the character of a [pd subpatch], that it is just a curtain to hide things from view, but that it has no semantic meaning at all.
I like having the arguments of the surrounding abstraction available inside the subpatch without further work. Also it is important to be able to $0-send through subpatch borders, but not through abstraction-borders. I see a subpatch as a full part of the patch that just isn't visible (or is, through GOP!)
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list