What I'm seeing here is basically there is no currently supported way in vanilla pd to adjust GOP properties for a particular abstraction (not globally)? If so, this is rather upsetting :(
~Brandon On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:11 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <[email protected]>wrote: > On 2010-09-30 09:02, brandon zeeb wrote: > > According to [namecanvas] help, this object is obsolete? How else can > one > > send a message to one and only one abstraction without using namecanvas? > Is > > there the concept of 'this'? > > "iemguts" kind of introduces a concept of "this". > most of the objects work on either "this" or "parent of this" or some > other "direct ancestor of this". > > otoh, pd itself never actively supported dynamic patching. > > > iirc, the reason for obsoleting [namecanvas] is that it allows the > dynamic patching engine to get into an inconsistent (probably crashing) > state (true, there are other things that allow this as well, without > getting obsoleted). > > anyhow, [namecanvas] has no concept of "this" either. > > fgmadsr > IOhannes > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
