[PD] fighting with route

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Feb 3 13:46:14 CET 2005

Thoralf Schulze wrote:
> hi thomas,
> thank you for your patience ... unfortunately, it
> still doesn't work. The lists received and the
> messages do look exactly the same indeed, but route
> does seem to make a difference. I'm sending the whole
> patch - it would be great if you could have a look at
> how the lists are composed. The idea of this whole

oh, you are confusing lists and symbols that look like lists.

[route] works on lists: if you have a list(!) "in mov1 blur 10" and send 
it to a [route in], you will get "mov1 motionblur 10" out of the 1st outlet.

now you are trying to generate your list-message "in mov1 blur 2", BUT 
you are doing it wrong: [l2s] will take an incoming list (in your case 
"in mov1 blur") and convert it into a symbol 'in mov1 blur', then you 
create a list with this symbol and the controller-input:
"'in mov1 blur' 22". this is _not_ a list of 4 elements "in", "mov1", 
"blur" and "22", _but_ a list only of 2 elements "in mov1 blur" and "22".
now [route in] takes the 1st argument of your list (which is "in mov1 
blur" instead of "in") and compares it to "in" (which is rejected, as 
the identifiers are not the same)

you have problems debugging it, as [print] does not show you the 
boundaries of symbols. if symbols where shown within single quotes you 
would get "'in mov1 blur' 22" while you want "'in' 'mov1' 'blur' 22"
(ok, by now i assume you got it)

the solution is, to _not_ use [l2s], replace the [pack s 0] with [pack s 
  s s 0] and the [symbol] by something that can store lists (like [l]).
if you want to stay more general, you will have to construct your 
messages with [pp], [prepend], [glue], [add( or whatever comes to your mind.

> thing is that abstractions are sending requests for
> midi controllers to be assigned to control effects, I
> hope my comments are helpful. btw, what is this
> "mov"-thingie? Never heard of this before.

which is a pity, as it was taken from your patch (probably instead of 

> The last thing I can think of now is to unpack the
> list and compose a message out of its elements.

a list *is* a message.
a symbol is an atom, which can be part of a list.


More information about the Pd-list mailing list