Em sáb., 6 de jun. de 2020 às 07:42, hans w. koch
escreveu:
> +1 for dynamic change in instance numbers
>
> has come up here before…
I'm surprised it hasn't been listed on github's issues, until now
https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/1055
_
Em sáb., 6 de jun. de 2020 às 05:32, baptiste chatel <
baptiste.cha...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> I wish i was as skilled as you think i am !
> I'm the one impressed by your work with Cyclone and Else while describing
> yourself as not so skilled in the externals programming domain :)
>
As a musician
ie.
>>>
>>> In abstraction:
>>>
>>> |
>>> [send~ out$1]
>>>
>>> For matrix:
>>>
>>> [receive~ out1] [receive~ out2] [receive~ out3]
>>> || |
>>> [matrix -
differentiate the sends, ie.
>>>>
>>>> In abstraction:
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> [send~ out$1]
>>>>
>>>> For matrix:
>>>>
>>>> [receive~ out1] [receive~ out2] [receive~ out3]
>>>> |
Yes, i know about intelligent patching. I must admit that all the shortcuts
are not stored in muscle memory yet !
But that does not solve the issue of having to duplicate and change the
argument of a great number of objects.
As i said to Dan, intelligent patching is so great now that having this
-m
itself has no outputs, but you have all of the
>> outputs via [send~]. I use this approach very often.
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2020, at 7:49 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:20:36 +0200
>> From: baptiste chatel
>
I wish i was as skilled as you think i am !
I'm the one impressed by your work with Cyclone and Else while describing
yourself as not so skilled in the externals programming domain :)
To add to the noise : your -mcin -mcout option idea is great ! Sure, there
are many ways to do without this in my
On 6/5/20 8:43 PM, baptiste chatel wrote:
> Clever, but you have to do a repetitive error-prone lengthy clicky process
> either on the send side or on the receive side.
how so?
https://vimeo.com/273707442
https://vimeo.com/279631360
https://vimeo.com/340437816
gfmr
IOhannes
signature.asc
Des
essage: 5
>> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:20:36 +0200
>> From: baptiste chatel > <mailto:baptiste.cha...@gmail.com>>
>> To: Pd-List mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>>
>> Subject: [PD] [clone] with individual signal inlets/outlets exposed ?
>> Message-ID:
>>
the [clone] itself has no outputs, but you have all of the
> outputs via [send~]. I use this approach very often.
>
> On Jun 5, 2020, at 7:49 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:20:36 +0200
> From: baptiste chatel
> To: Pd-
I guess making noise on the list helps :) it narrows down to someone also
feel it's worth it and implement it, aren't you a skilled fellow anyway? I
think this one is over my head... I'm still only able to managing lower
hanging fruits :P
Em sex., 5 de jun. de 2020 às 15:30, baptiste chatel <
bapt
Is there a way to nicely "upvote" this request other than commenting the
issue ?
Le ven. 5 juin 2020 à 20:16, Alexandre Torres Porres a
écrit :
> I already made that request by the way
> https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/500
>
> Em sex., 5 de jun. de 2020 às 14:51, baptiste chatel <
From: baptiste chatel <mailto:baptiste.cha...@gmail.com>>
> To: Pd-List mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>>
> Subject: [PD] [clone] with individual signal inlets/outlets exposed ?
> Message-ID:
><mailto:cabrnplyvghrrv-+9wdj2p8nnzenqdwegg-to7yfhejw5l1e...@mail.gm
I already made that request by the way
https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/500
Em sex., 5 de jun. de 2020 às 14:51, baptiste chatel <
baptiste.cha...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Would it be possible to have a [clone] option that allows clones
> individual signal inlets/outlets to be exposed
Would it be possible to have a [clone] option that allows clones individual
signal inlets/outlets to be exposed ?
An example : i need to make 64 of the following patch :
[receive~ thing-$1]
|
[outlet~]
that should go to a matrix, $1 in [1:64].
[clone] is useless because it will sum all outputs an
15 matches
Mail list logo
