[PD-dev] pack~/unpack~ (was Re: multichannel signals, preliminary support)

[Dan Wilcox]

Another option is an object like [clone] which instantiates for multichannel handling only... could simply be called [mc~] and take specific creation names for functionality, otherwise creates the objects for mc handling, so works like [text] etc:

[mc 4 osc~] -> creates 4 [osc~] instances inside

[mc pack 4] -> unpacks 4 channels

[mc unpack] -> packs 4 channels

[mc tap 1] -> taps single channel 1 out of the 4 channels 

...

> On Jan 23, 2023, at 6:33 PM, pd-dev-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:02:33 -0300
> From: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com <mailto:porres at gmail.com>>
> To: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com <mailto:reduzent at gmail.com>>
> Cc: pd-dev at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-dev at lists.iem.at>
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] pack~/unpack~ (was Re: multichannel signals,
> 	preliminary support)
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAEAsFmiwCAPQn-4LUiJLMKT3KDVvPzLiqsuQK4W4mtzD657_iw at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAEAsFmiwCAPQn-4LUiJLMKT3KDVvPzLiqsuQK4W4mtzD657_iw at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I actually do like pack~/unpack~ a lot, because they have control
> counterparts and also MAX uses something similar but prepends 'mc.' to it,
> so [mc.pack~] and [mc.unpack~] are exactly what [pack~] and [unpack~] do!
> 
> On the other hand, if we really want to avoid this collision badly, maybe
> we could use a similar convention to specify an object that is multichannel
> aware, something quite new in the pd world. I'm not saying we should use
> the same 'mc.' convention. I know using "." is not much common in the Pd
> world, but in ELSE I use it and have plans to add many multichannel aware
> externals that would make things simpler and while we don't have our
> [clone] solution for internal and external objects, like a muti channel
> [dac~] object called [dac.mc~]. I like it better that the mc comes later as
> objects would be alphabetically next to their multichannel version. This
> would also prevent people from thinking it's an external from Cyclone that
> mimics the original.
> 
> 
> So... what about [pack.mc~] and [unpack.mc~]?
> 
> maybe just [packmc~] and [unpackmc~] as well... but I like "."
> 
> cheers

--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20230124/790fea98/attachment-0001.htm>