Carlos Pita wrote: > I've thought a bit more about the subject. I find that a realisation of the > idea on top of a custom gui object could have some rough edges: > > (i) the code is not given at creation time, so if the number of > inlets/outlets is to be inferred from it, pd objects should support > adding/removing of inlets/outlets after object initialization. Is this > possible?
afaik it is possible, though the gui might not get updated accordingly. BUT: what do you gain from that? it would break your patch everytime you send your object another code-snippet (with other iolets) > > (ii) maybe the object will show itself in outer abstractions when contained > in inner abstractions with graph-in-parent activated. Is it possible to > avoid this? yes: do not use "graphical" objects; all "normal" (non-graphical) objects will be invisible on the parent. if your object has to be graphical, just don't put it into the red rectangle of the child-patch, and you won't see it in the parent. there is not much use of a graphical object which you cannot see. (there are uses for such objects, but i guess you don't want to reinvent the whell for that...) mfg.asdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
