[PD] [clone]'s instance number
christof.ressi at gmx.at
Wed May 11 18:17:28 CEST 2016
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.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 um 18:06 Uhr
Von: "Ivica Bukvic" <ico at vt.edu>
An: "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu>
Cc: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <zmoelnig at iem.at>, Pd-list <pd-list at lists.iem.at>, "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
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.
ICAT Senior Fellow
Director -- DISIS, L2Ork
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
ico at vt.edu
On May 11, 2016 11:50, "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu[msp at ucsd.edu]> 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.
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.
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 um 16:25 Uhr
> > Von: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <zmoelnig at iem.at[zmoelnig at iem.at]>
> > An: pd-list at lists.iem.at[pd-list at lists.iem.at]
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at[Pd-list at lists.iem.at] mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at[Pd-list at lists.iem.at] mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]
Pd-list at lists.iem.at[Pd-list at lists.iem.at] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]
More information about the Pd-list