On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 13:29 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 18:54 +0200, Ingo wrote: > > Hi Hans, > > > > unfortunately I am not really good at C or C++ so I have to stick with > > simplifying within Pd until I get there. But I am actually working on it so > > I'll be able to replace certain objects in my patches by more efficient > > externals. Anyway, I think in the case of simplifying the pduino patch > > another external would be rather contra productive. > > Makes sense, I think having it as a Pd abstraction is good too, I did > write it that way rather than in C :) I was just saying that C would be > more efficient. > > > The optimized multiple debytemasks (up to 56 input pins) as a Pd-patch are > > attached. I just called it differently because this was taken from an old > > display keypad patch that I had done before. > > > > I am using this in my remote control unit and it's working perfectly. > > The [change -1] is a great idea, I just committed that to bytemask.pd > and debytemask.pd. But the [pd resolve-bits_0-7] abstractions seem > quite labor-intensive, but they work. I think it would work better to > use multiple instances of [debytemask].
But then you need a row of [+ 8] ([+ 16], [+ 24]) for each instance of debytemask. So, it's still tedious work, whether you're using an abstraction or copies of the subpatch. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
