On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 15:21 -0800, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > > From: Bill Gribble <[email protected]> > > I am working on a pd-clone intended to explore a lot of the topics in this > > thread. It's not fully baked yet -- the biggest working patch is a biquad > > filter designer with pole-zero and freq response plotting -- but I'm > > particularly excited about the approach to namespacing and scope > > management, > > which works a lot like hc describes. Patches have a set of scopes which > > can be > > mapped onto subpatches (represented as layers, not separate windows). Name > > resolution in send/receive elements works like you would want it to. > > How does scope work for abstractions?
Well, every object in a patch has a name. To find that object, the tree of patches and scopes is crawled upward from the site of the lookup. For example, the (equivalent of) [s "foo"] first looks in the scope of the [s], then the patch-global scope of the containing patch, then in the application global scope for the name "foo". Dotted notation can drill down, so [s "foo.bar"] would try to find an object named "foo", then find "bar" in its patch-global scope (or an object named "bar" within a scope named "foo" in the current patch). Does that make sense? Thanks, Bill Gribble _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
