Luke, I think this should be allowed, hell, even the use of other $ arguments. It would be nice to be able to allow abstractions to create their own private data structures, or at least ones that could be named based on a creation argument.
If nothing else, it would prevent any kind of structure naming clashes between objects that define structure with the same name. I had, like you, tried this same thing only to find that the saves files were then having those structures renamed. It would also be nice if you could store a reference to any type of data structure within one of these "private" data structures... of course, the abstraction being passed this arbitrary pointer to a data structure wouldn't know what to do with it, but it could be sent out an outlet to some outside processing code. Could this be done by adding a 'pointer' type to the structure definition? Something like: [struct my-struct float value pointer object] Mike On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Luke Iannini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo all, > > I'm working on my complex DS sequencer, and the time has come that I'd > like to read and write sequences from it. > > The problem is this: all of my templates are written like [pd > $0.note-template] to allow multiple instances of the sequencer, but > this seems to be incompatible with reading and writing data from a > subpatch ( like [write my-data.structure( - [pd $0.data] ), because > the $0 is expanded in the written file (so it's full of "template > 90953loopMarkerTemplate;" etc. rather than "template > \$0loopMarkerTemplate;"). > > The immediate thought was to split the templates into a separate patch > altogether, and spawn it before creating the sequencer or use a > singleton approach. But, this ruins using [change( messages from > [struct]s as well as selectively turning on and off [draw*]n elements > on a per-sequencer basis. > > The only other option AFAICT is to forget DS reading and writing and > just mirror the data in lists with SSSAD, but that would be a shame > considering the capability exists already. > > It seems to me that the written datastructure definition should > preserve $0, no? Anyone have any other ideas? > > (apologies if this is unclear, I'm very tired at the moment) > Best > Luke > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > -- Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word— but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal. —Yehudi Menuhin (1916–1999), musician _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list