Brian H.

So, apparently table names/contexts are universal, across all sub patchers & abstractions– is that correct?

If so, any reccomendations for semi-elegant solutions to the need for an abstraction with several tables, used a few times in the same patch, but where the tables need to be created with unique names?

Hi,
So, apparently table names/contexts are universal, across all sub patchers & abstractions– is that correct?

Hi,
So, apparently table names/contexts are universal, across all sub patchers & abstractions– is that correct?
If so, any reccomendations f

-table-names

if you name a table in an abstraction "#1_table", the #1 will be replaced with the first argument you put in your abstraction. So if you have [myabstraction foo], the table name would be "foo_table" (#2 would be for the second argument, etc.)

Starting a table name with #0 in an abstraction will replace the #0 with a numeric code unique to that patcher: #0_table becomes 1911_table or suchlike.

NB: #1, #0 in names which are attached to a symbol must be at the beginning of the symbol! #1_table will become foo_table, but table#1 will stay table#1.

Also NB: if data is not designed to be shared among multiple instances of [table], there's no need to name it.

Thanks, so useful! Maybe I missed it in the documentation, but I hope it's there.

Thanks, so useful!  Maybe I missed it in the documentation, but I hope it's there.

Check out tutorial 15: Abstractions and Arguments and Special Characters in Max - $ and #.

Check out tutorial 15: Abstractions  and Arguments and Special Characters in Max - $ and #.

[table] names...