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__ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
