On 4/28/07, Frank Barknecht < fbar@footils.org> wrote:

Hallo,
Peter Worth hat gesagt: // Peter Worth wrote:

> i did consider that actually, but then thought that it would make
> the abstraction less of a "black box" because the parent needs to
> know something about it's inner workings (that it requires an
> array).

If you want to save something (the array) with the parent patch, then
that something has to be in the parent, not in the abstraction itself,
because if you save the abstraction, you can only save one array with
the abstraction.

However if you don't need to save the abstraction and still want to
have different arrays inside, you leave the array in the abstraction,
but call it something with $0 like [table $0-inside] and set the
values on demand from the parent.

Attached is an example on what I mean.

A third possibility would be to use some kind of state-saving system,
though I wouldn't save larger tables with that. Larger tables are
better served with their own files, possibly in wav-format.

Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__

_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list