Chris McCormick wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:10:01AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
>> That's what I meant: Instead of an object like [namecanvas] that can
>> be deleted, an entry field in an abstraction's "Properties" menu would
>> be more secure.
>
> Ah yes of course, that's a great idea
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:10:01AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Chris McCormick hat gesagt: // Chris McCormick wrote:
> > Or maybe you're talking about something else? The namecanvas issue would
> > be solved if each patch was given a default name like pd-$0 or somesuch.
>
> That's what I meant
Hallo,
Chris McCormick hat gesagt: // Chris McCormick wrote:
> Or maybe you're talking about something else? The namecanvas issue would
> be solved if each patch was given a default name like pd-$0 or somesuch.
That's what I meant: Instead of an object like [namecanvas] that can
be deleted, an en
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:01:48AM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Matteo Sisti Sette hat gesagt: // Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
> > The workaround of creating a subpatch (which you may call $0- or
> > $1-something) is ok if all the dynamically generated stuff is "processing
> > stuff", but what if
Hallo,
Matteo Sisti Sette hat gesagt: // Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
> Frank Barknecht wrote
>
> > Try:
> >
> > [clear(
> > |
> > [s $0something]
> >
> > That's why [namecanvas] is not the final word on the functionality it
> > provides.
>
> I don't understand what you mean. If you mean because
Frank Barknecht wrote
> Try:
>
> [clear(
> |
> [s $0something]
>
> That's why [namecanvas] is not the final word on the functionality it
> provides.
I don't understand what you mean. If you mean because it makes PD crash,
then try this:
[clear(
|
[s pd-whateverthisfileiscalled.pd]
with no u
