Hi, David N G McCallum hat gesagt: // David N G McCallum wrote:
The reason that I bring this all up is that if I want to do repetitive tasks in a patch without using external abstractions I would just like to create a subpatch that I can copy/paste with different arguments.
In my view, to copy/paste with different arguments is a case for an abstraction. Subpatches are there to hide things and to share the sends and receives of the surrounding patch even when using $0-named sends. I rely on this fact quite often.
Especially with regard to the $0-variables subpatches are invaluable the way they are. $0 is mostly used for local variables, sends and receives. They are not seen in an abstraction, that has its own $0, but they are seen in a subpatch. Also the $1, $2, ... variables of a surrounding patch are seen in the subpatch right away, but they don't mess around in an abstraction, that keeps its own set of $1, $2, ...
There are usages for both and I'm glad, that subpatches and abstractions are different in this regard. Where I want to send local in a patch but still want to reach hidden receives, I use a subpatch, and where I don't want this I use an abstraction.
Instead of changing the subpatch behaviour I would much rather like all sends and receives to be local, because almost all my s and r names start with $0-...
What about this?
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__