João Pais wrote:
Hello list,
I didn't try clone yet, I always worked with dynamic patching for
similar issues. For those who are knowledgeable, I would like to ask: is
there any advantage of clone against dynamic patching when using the
same circuit, or is it the same?
This pertains to patches working on both control and signal input/output.
if you are familiar with MAX:
[clone] is nearly the same as [poly~]
one feature badly missing is the possibility ta allocate dynamic "voice"
(or "instance") numbers (i.e. how many instances of an abstraction are
created). i hope miller has plans to implement this in the future.
right now, all you can do is a combination of using [clone] and dynamic
patching if you want to change the number of instances on the fly
(destroy the old clone object and re-create it with new arguments with
PD messages).
i used [clone] on several occasions and find it extremely useful, as you
can directly edit the original source and see the results (as opposed to
MAX).
i would say the best use case is a situation, where you need let's say
10 or more copies of a patch (i.e. for parameter organisation,
oscillator banks etc...). basically it's the same as creating multiple
abstractions where you do the message routing internally with a creation
argument
[abs 1]
[abs 2]
[abs 3]
[abs 4] etc...
so, no - there's no direct ADVANTAGE over dynamic patching but in
general i think it's the better and clearer concept
best
oliver
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
