Arrays are not the best thing to use for data persistence. Messages constructed using "set" and then textfiles are preferable. Alexandre Quessy just posted a method yesterday that implements a per patch memory. You might like to study the "bag'o'tricks" GOP abstractions to see another effective example of doing this.
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:43:54 +0300 sokratesla ugurguney@gmail.com wrote:
# Hi everybody! # I tried to build an abstraction which remembers its previous state before closing the patch. I put an array in the abstraction with its "save contents" option checked and saved the state of the abstraction in this array of which name starts with $0- in order to make each table unique. A [loadbang] outputs the values stored in the array. # But this doesn't seems to work. I made an example of this structure. abswmem.pd is a very simple abstraction, and test.abswmem.pd have two of them. After giving the arrays of the abstractions different values, saving the patch, closing it, and loading again. Nothing happens :-) The values aren't stored in the arrays. # And I see the ambiguity. There is only one .pd file for the abstraction, so, only one file for storing the values of the array. Which abstraction object's array will be saved etc?
# Can anybody help with these? -ugur guney-