I wonder if there's a way to map instance numbers to $0 values in instances. Suppose you had:
[clone -receive foo 16 abstraction 1 2 3] where 1 2 3 are mapped to $1 $2 $3 inside the instances, respectively. [clone] makes 16 instances. Then in your abstraction you have [r $0-foo], and [4 <message>(--[s foo] from outside would be received by the [r $0-foo] inside the fourth instance. The complicated thing here is how to make this work: [clone -receive $0-foo 16 abstraction 1 2 3] Since the instances don't know their parent's $0-value, you'd need to modify your abstraction to contain [r $0-$4-foo], and then make [clone -receive $0-foo 16 abstraction 1 2 3 $0]. This is complicated -- probably too complicated -- but the advantage would be that you'd need to make minimal changes to the abstraction. The levels of locality are handled by the user, and it would be much less disruptive to add an extra argument at the end when needed than to get [clone] to try to handle it automatically with the current $1 stuff. But again, I might be missing something in the design and intended use of the $1 mapping. On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Alex Norman <x37v.a...@gmail.com> 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.re...@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" <m...@ucsd.edu> >>> An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.re...@gmx.at> >>> Cc: Pd-list <pd-list@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" <m...@ucsd.edu> >>>>> An: "Jaime >>>>> Oliver" <jaime.oliv...@gmail.com> >>>>> Cc: "Christof Ressi" <christof.re...@gmx.at>, Pd-list >>>>> <pd-list@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.re...@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" <i...@vt.edu> >>>>>>> An: "Miller Puckette" <m...@ucsd.edu> >>>>>>> Cc: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <zmoel...@iem.at>, Pd-list >>>>>>> <pd-list@lists.iem.at>, "Christof Ressi" <christof.re...@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 >>>>>>> i...@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" >>>>>>> <m...@ucsd.edu[m...@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" <zmoel...@iem.at[zmoel...@iem.at]> >>>>>>>>> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at[pd-list@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@lists.iem.at[Pd-list@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@lists.iem.at[Pd-list@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@lists.iem.at[Pd-list@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@lists.iem.at mailing list >>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>>>>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list >>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>>>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list >>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
