Hallo, Jamie Bullock hat gesagt: // Jamie Bullock wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 07:52 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
I can have a [namecanvas $0something] in it and so the message I would use would be
[obj etc etc( | [s $0something]
Try:
[clear( | [s $0something]
That's why [namecanvas] is not the final word on the functionality it provides.
Could you explain a bit more about this? I can't see how it relates to Matteo's question.
If you have a [namecanvas named-abs] in a patch, and then send a [clear( message to that namecanvas with [; named-abs clear( you will also delete the [namecanvas named-abs] object. Then you will you not be able to access this patch again, and additionally it's at least strange, that an object - [namcavas named-abs] - is in fact destroying itself here.
If however you just want to do some dynamic patching, a subpatch is just as powerful and it's much easier to handle. Just compare the old and the new nqpoly4: The newer one using subpatches is more readable, much less error-prone and much easier to extend or change (which led to variations like [polypoly])
I can only think of a small handful of usecases where [namecanvas] is actually necessary.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__