Hello,
I'd like to know if it's possible/feasible to make the following
change to the way data structures are saved when you write them to a
file:
Don't expand $0, $1, etc. in the struct name.
So $0-struct gets saved as \$0-struct
This is currently the way $0 is handled when you name a
this is why i gave up on datastructs the first time i learnt how to use
them. i always just thought i was doing something wrong.
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Then how do you deal with situations where you need to store related
info like this? I could see that it would be very easy to come up with
an alternative, using something like an external written in Lua (or
even in C), that would allow for the storing of related/structured
data.
What do you do?
i dunno. i gave up. i didn't look for a solution.
was just saying that it was the $0 problem that finally made me too
frustrated to continue.
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
Well, I would be interested in knowing how many people actually use
data structures, and if they do, is it for the ability to create
graphical editors of the data.
Mike
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:42 AM, hard off [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dunno. i gave up. i didn't look for a solution.
was
Hallo,
Mike McGonagle hat gesagt: // Mike McGonagle wrote:
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.
Hallo,
Mike McGonagle hat gesagt: // Mike McGonagle wrote:
Hum, I have had this issue with other things using $0, and it seems
almost impossible while developing a patch to NOT save over a patch
containing a $0 reference. There are some situations that I have
learned not to do this, but that
Hum, I have had this issue with other things using $0, and it seems
almost impossible while developing a patch to NOT save over a patch
containing a $0 reference. There are some situations that I have
learned not to do this, but that was only after several lost patches
and data...
While it has
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallo,
Mike McGonagle hat gesagt: // Mike McGonagle wrote:
Hm, I guess I don't completely understand what you are referring to.
Probably my inability to remember exactly what happened. Data
Structures just seems to me to
Hi,
i'm working on an abstraction with data structures inside (franks
tutorial was very helpful
http://puredata.info/community/projects/convention04/lectures/tk-barknecht/tut.tgz/view?searchterm=data%20structures%20tut
) and i use $1 in the name of the template (like this: struct
$1-template
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Mike McGonagle hat gesagt: // Mike McGonagle wrote:
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
