> Where do you envision the corresponding [r~ foo-$1] or [throw~ bar-$1] to > reside? > If it's in the same abstraction, then $0 ought to work just as well. Outside of [clone]: if you want instances to take different signal inputs or disambiguate the signal output (as [clone] will simply sum at [outlet~]). Could be useful for handling multi-channel audio processing.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2016 um 22:40 Uhr Von: "Matt Barber" <[email protected]> An: "Christof Ressi" <[email protected]> Cc: "Miller Puckette" <[email protected]>, Pd-list <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number BTW: I guess, it's mostly a design question, whether to work with instance numbers inside abstractions and or to work with dispatching via the inlets and outlets. However, I can think of at least two cases where it's necessary to have immediate access to instance numbers inside an abstraction: a) [send~ foo-$1] or [catch~ bar-$1] to disambiguate audio inputs/outputs, because you can't set these two dynamically like [r~] and [throw~] Where do you envision the corresponding [r~ foo-$1] or [throw~ bar-$1] to reside? If it's in the same abstraction, then $0 ought to work just as well. b) instantiate another abstraction by the instance number (nested abstractions) Do you mean something like you have 1-baz.pd, 2-baz.pd, etc. and then inside your [clone] abstraction you've got [$1-baz]? I suppose this is a potential use case. So the current behaviour of [clone] (passing the instance number as $1) can be important and very useful. The alternative mode I proposed is mainly for convenience but I'm sure it would pay off in the long run! > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2016 um 18:45 Uhr > Von: "Miller Puckette" <[email protected]> > An: "Alex Norman" <[email protected][[email protected]]> > Cc: "Christof Ressi" <[email protected][[email protected]]>, Pd-list > <[email protected][[email protected]]> > Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number > > OK... sounds like it's worth putting in. I guess with the one-letter it > already takes (-s) I should also add something like a -e flag to put the > number argument at the end of the list instead of the beginning, or something > like that. > > cheers > Miller > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 07:20:29AM -0700, Alex Norman wrote: > > I see your point, the abstraction need not know it's instance number since > > only the messages meant for it would be dispatched to it.. If you don't > > care about using sends directed to a specific abstraction then the $1 does > > nothing for you and if the flag to clone could ditch the $1 to instance > > setting and just set the arguments to the abstraction [clone -flag blah 20 > > 1 2 3] makes 20 copies of blah with args $1=1 $2=2.. You could use more of > > your existing abstractions as is, using their args the same way with or > > without clone. > > > > I'm warming up to that idea. > > > > Alex > > > > On May 17, 2016 6:44:51 PM PDT, Christof Ressi > > <[email protected][[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][[email protected]]> > > >> An: "Christof Ressi" <[email protected][[email protected]]> > > >> Cc: Pd-list <[email protected][[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][[email protected]]> > > >> > > An: "Jaime Oliver" <[email protected][[email protected]]> > > >> > > Cc: "Christof Ressi" <[email protected][[email protected]]>, > > >> > > Pd-list > > ><[email protected][[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][[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][[email protected]]> > > >> > > > > An: "Miller Puckette" <[email protected][[email protected]]> > > >> > > > > Cc: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <[email protected][[email protected]]>, > > >> > > > > Pd-list > > ><[email protected][[email protected]]>, "Christof Ressi" > > ><[email protected][[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][[email protected]] > > >> > > > > www.performingarts.vt.edu[http://www.performingarts.vt.edu][http://www.performingarts.vt.edu[http://www.performingarts.vt.edu]] > > >> > > > > disis.icat.vt.edu[http://disis.icat.vt.edu][http://disis.icat.vt.edu[http://disis.icat.vt.edu]] > > >> > > > > l2ork.icat.vt.edu[http://l2ork.icat.vt.edu][http://l2ork.icat.vt.edu[http://l2ork.icat.vt.edu]] > > >> > > > > ico.bukvic.net[http://ico.bukvic.net][http://ico.bukvic.net[http://ico.bukvic.net]] > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On May 11, 2016 11:50, "Miller Puckette" > > ><[email protected][[email protected]][[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]][[email protected][[email protected]]]> > > >> > > > >>> An: > > >> > > > >>> [email protected][[email protected]][[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]][[email protected][[email protected]]] > > >> > > > >>> mailing list > > >> > > > >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > >https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list][https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]] > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> > > > >> [email protected][[email protected]][[email protected][[email protected]]] > > >> > > > >> mailing list > > >> > > > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > >https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list][https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]] > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > > > [email protected][[email protected]][[email protected][[email protected]]] > > >> > > > > mailing list > > >> > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > >https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list][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][[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
