As I say, I could neaten this in a number of ways, I was considering some form of [loadbang] triggered script to delete the objects on creation, then use a delay to initialize the generative patch. Which would also solve the problem.
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:00:40 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PD] Pd "monosymphonia" > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:32:27AM +0100, Andrew Faraday wrote: > > P.S. I do realize that I could clean this up a great deal. The addition of > > [table] objects could just as easily be a single expanding array, I could > > hide modules away in sub patches and the sliders used for visualization > > could > > be more efficiently done with gem. > > > > Regarding subpatches: I would do this kind of dynamic object generation in a > subpatch anyway instead of putting the new objects into the main patch. That > way, you can easily start with a fresh subpatch by sending "clean" to [s > pd-subpatchname] instead of having to manually delete the created > tables/objects. > > Ciao > -- > Frank Barknecht Do You RjDj.me? _ ______footils.org__ > > _______________________________________________ > [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
