Hallo, geiger hat gesagt: // geiger wrote:
I think the person who edits the patch (the "programmer") should be aware of this, he should know that the settings for the first abstraction go into the abstraction that is on the left, just as he knows that the inlet/outlet that is on the left will be the first one.
Of course if you add an abstraction, there won't be any data for it to load.
Yes, that's no problem. Btw: With "$1-tags" it also is possible to use the same tag for different instances of an abstraction so that they share the same settings which is very useful for dealing with polyphony.
Also, if you add the abstraction at the beginning, the whole data will be shifted one abstraction.
Urgh ... ;)
If you remove one abstraction at the end, nothing happens, if you remove it somewhere in the middle, the data will get loaded differently.
Urgh++ ;) ;)
Anyhow, not too different from adding and removing inlets and outlets.
inlets and outlets are the only thing in Pd where position really matters (ignoring internals like connections for now), and that's already a little problem, although we got used to it. But you may remember proposals by Matju IIRC to introduce inlet arguments to specify which inlet should be at which position. I think, that was an idea carried over from jMax.
Anyways I generally prefer the explicit approach Pd uses most of the time. Two patches that print the same should also behave the same and that isn't the case anymore if we rely on position alone to load data.
How did [state] handle this?
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__