Michal Seta wrote:
Attached is a solution to your problem (note that I added adc~ for testing). Lemme know if it works...
What you did works fine, thanks a lot !!!
Also, in this case you don't need to add arguments your abstractions as your arrays get named automatically.
However, I don't know of a way of supplying creation arguments to messages (is there a way???) so your message will not work as you expected. Therefore, AFAIK, the bang to the [openpanel] will not work as expected (in fact, when I was playing with this pd has returned an error saying "inlet: no method for symbol". I moved the openpanel into the abstraction (I did that while replying to the message so this change is not in the attachment, should I have included it?) and then it worked when sending bang into the inlet). So my suggestion is to make an argument $1-bigsample where you supply an argument and everything gets named after that argument (you gave an argument anyways...) and you can use that little trick with symbol->makefilename to make sure the message gets sent properly. If there's a more elegant way of doing this I'd be interested in it.
Still, 2 features are surprising to me :
a/
building patch = build objects + expand their arguments
not : expand (objects+arguments) + build them
rem : this would be a too severe patch.
b/
$n means :
"nth patch argument in an object" "nth run-time incoming value in a message"
this would be clearer to me if creation arguments would be referred as "$$n" or "£n", but this would break a lot of patches, right ??
So, keep things this way.
Thanks for your very fast reply.
Regards,
Yves Degoyon.