I might be confused about something here. Is the idea of setting $1 as the [clone] instance number so that the abstraction can know its instance value from inside? Any communication from the outside (including between instances) should probably be done via [clone] itself since all messages are (or can be) addressed by the instance number. Or is the idea that you should be able to set up a [r $1-foo] inside instances for communication?
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Christof Ressi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
