[PD] [clone]'s instance number

Alex x37v.alex at gmail.com
Wed May 18 19:28:09 CEST 2016


I believe that in any mode, as is, sending the message |1 2 3( to the nth
input of [clone blah 16] object will route the message |2 3( to instance
1's nth input.
At this point I think all audio sent via [inlet~] or [outlet~] is summed.

As is, I think its a pretty nice approach and something I've been wanting
in PD for a long time.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jaime Oliver <jaime.oliver2 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If I am understanding correctly the alternative mode, the idea is not so
> much to put it at the end or at the beginning, but to have a routing
> mechanism incorporated so that if you send the message
>
> 1 2 3
>
> to clone,
>
> then instance 1 gets the message 2 3 in its inlet.
>
> right?
>
> In the mode where $1 is the instance number this would be done by putting
> in the abstraction
>
> [inlet]
> |
> [route $1]
>
> Then the outlet would prepend the instance number?
>
> How would this all be managed with audio?
> Are we making it unnecessarily complex?
>
> J
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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 <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
> 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" <msp at ucsd.edu>
> >>>> An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
> >>>> Cc: Pd-list <pd-list at lists.iem.at>
> >>>> 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" <msp at ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>> An: "Jaime Oliver" <jaime.oliver2 at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>, Pd-list
> >>> <pd-list at lists.iem.at>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>> <christof.ressi at gmx.at> 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" <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.
> >>>>>>>> Associate Professor
> >>>>>>>> Computer Music
> >>>>>>>> ICAT Senior Fellow
> >>>>>>>> Director -- DISIS, L2Ork
> >>>>>>>> Virginia Tech
> >>>>>>>> School of Performing Arts – 0141
> >>>>>>>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
> >>>>>>>> (540) 231-6139
> >>>>>>>> ico at vt.edu
> >>>>>>>> www.performingarts.vt.edu[http://www.performingarts.vt.edu]
> >>>>>>>> disis.icat.vt.edu[http://disis.icat.vt.edu]
> >>>>>>>> l2ork.icat.vt.edu[http://l2ork.icat.vt.edu]
> >>>>>>>> ico.bukvic.net[http://ico.bukvic.net]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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"
> >>> <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]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160518/f217e78b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list