you can still disambiguate, because incoming messages are dispatched by the instance number and outgoing messages are prepended with it!
My suggestion was mainly concerning all abstractions that work with inlets and outlets (as opposed to sends and receives), where you basically pass a message and get something out. This could be anything, from simple message filtering to a perlin noise generator. Or also existing audio modules that work with a message inlet. If there was such a flag, you could take any of these abstractions as they are, control them separately by prepending the instance number and route the message output (or use the sum of the audio output). I guess, people will use [clone] mainly for voice management for synthesizers, granular synthesis, complicated nested patches etc., but I also see a great potential for massive data generation by using existing simple abstractions and cloning them. Personally, I have many abstractions I would like to use with [clone], but either I'd have to rewrite them or make a wrapper abstraction. It's not a big deal, it's just that an alternative forwarding mode would provide some additional convenience (and could also encourage other usages for [clone]). Anyway, I can totally live without this feature, but would be happy to have it :-). > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2016 um 02:35 Uhr > Von: "Miller Puckette" <[email protected]> > An: "Christof Ressi" <[email protected]> > Cc: Pd-list <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number > > I'm not sure... would anyone ever use this feature? The patch in question > would ahve to take arguments (if not, thre's no problem) but not use them to > disambiguate the instances (because clone will set them all equal anyway). > I have trouble imaginig anyone building a patch like that. > > cheers > Miller > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:54:16AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: > > What do you think about the idea with a flag for changing the way creation > > arguments are forwarded? It would be really handy if you could write > > something like > > [clone -flag 100 my-abstraction 5 6 7] and $1 $2 $3 will be substituted by > > 5 6 7 instead of [N] 5 6. This way you could use existing abstractions as > > they are, without the need for writing a wrapper abstraction to handle the > > creation argument forwarding. > > > > Christof > > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Mai 2016 um 04:05 Uhr > > > Von: "Miller Puckette" <[email protected]> > > > An: "Jaime Oliver" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: "Christof Ressi" <[email protected]>, Pd-list > > > <[email protected]> > > > Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number > > > > > > Cool, taking this suggestion. At least for now it will work either way, > > > but it's much more readable with the abstraction name first so I changed > > > the > > > help file to invoke it that way. > > > > > > cheers > > > Miller > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:13:37PM -0400, Jaime Oliver wrote: > > > > Well, > > > > > > > > What would happen if instead of calling clone like: > > > > > > > > [clone 16 my-abstraction 1 5 9] > > > > > > > > we called it with: > > > > > > > > [clone my-abstraction 16 1 5 9] > > > > > > > > and then $1 seems quite appropriate. > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > J > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Christof Ressi <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I agree that $1 is most natural! > > > > > > > > > > However, what about adding an additional flag -foo for [clone], which > > > > > changes the way creation arguments are parsed? > > > > > Passing -foo could ignore the object ID and rather forward creation > > > > > arguments just as they are. > > > > > > > > > > This wouldn't break the current behaviour of [clone], but provide > > > > > some functionality to deal with ordinary abstractions more > > > > > conveniently. > > > > > > > > > > Christof > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 um 18:06 Uhr > > > > > Von: "Ivica Bukvic" <[email protected]> > > > > > An: "Miller Puckette" <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <[email protected]>, Pd-list > > > > > <[email protected]>, "Christof Ressi" <[email protected]> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number > > > > > What about having an if statement that detects clone object and if > > > > > so, compensates for $2 discrepancy and assigns $1 to it instead and > > > > > increments from there? This way the discrepancy is internalized as > > > > > opposed to something user needs to deal with. > > > > > -- > > > > > Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A. > > > > > Associate Professor > > > > > Computer Music > > > > > ICAT Senior Fellow > > > > > Director -- DISIS, L2Ork > > > > > Virginia Tech > > > > > School of Performing Arts – 0141 > > > > > Blacksburg, VA 24061 > > > > > (540) 231-6139 > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > www.performingarts.vt.edu[http://www.performingarts.vt.edu] > > > > > disis.icat.vt.edu[http://disis.icat.vt.edu] > > > > > l2ork.icat.vt.edu[http://l2ork.icat.vt.edu] > > > > > ico.bukvic.net[http://ico.bukvic.net] > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2016 11:50, "Miller Puckette" > > > > > <[email protected][[email protected]]> wrote:I gave this some thought but > > > > > couldn't come up with anything more natural than > > > > > the "$1" idea. It allows for changing the other arguments more > > > > > easily than > > > > > it would have been if the instance number were passed last. Also, > > > > > somehow > > > > > it felt more natural to have the instance number first. > > > > > > > > > > If there's interest in the idea, I could add arrguments to change the > > > > > behavior (such as putting $1 last instead of first)... Offhand I > > > > > doubt that > > > > > would get used much though. > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > Miller > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: > > > > >> There's also a pitfall: additional creation arguments for the cloned > > > > >> abstraction will start with $2. > > > > >> For example, in [clone 16 my-abstraction 1 5 9] '1' will be parsed > > > > >> as $2, '5' as $3, '9' as $4 etc. > > > > >> No problem, if the abstraction was written for being used with > > > > >> [clone], but bad when cloning existing abstractions. > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm wondering if there could be a way to get the abstraction ID > > > > >> without messing up existing abstractions... Maybe have a dedicated > > > > >> object? > > > > >> > > > > >> For now, I think it's important to mention the parsing of additional > > > > >> creation arguments in the help file. > > > > >> > > > > >> Christof > > > > >> > > > > >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 um 16:25 Uhr > > > > >>> Von: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <[email protected][[email protected]]> > > > > >>> An: [email protected][[email protected]] > > > > >>> Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 2016-05-11 16:18, Liam Goodacre wrote: > > > > >>>> Would it be possible to access [clone]'s unique instance number > > > > >>>> from within the patch, a bit like a creation argument? This could > > > > >>>> be used to achieve differentiation between the abstractions, ie. > > > > >>>> if the abstraction contains "tabread4~ $-1.array" and the $-1 is > > > > >>>> replaced with the instance number, then each instance could read a > > > > >>>> different file. Of course there are other ways of doing this, but > > > > >>>> it would be neat to do it with clone, and I'm wondering if there's > > > > >>>> a way. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> isn't this what $1 is already doing in clone's instances? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> fgasdmr > > > > >>> IOhannes > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> [email protected][[email protected]] mailing list > > > > >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > > >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list] > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> [email protected][[email protected]] mailing list > > > > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > > >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [email protected][[email protected]] mailing list > > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [email protected] mailing list > > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > [email protected] mailing list > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
