Forums > MaxMSP

Comment in Bpatcher

May 3, 2008 | 9:47 am

Hi,

I join A zip file with 3 patchers

CommentBug : The main patch
Untitled1 : a Max 5 abstract
Untitled2 : a Max 4.6.3 abstract

you can see how max 5 use arguments in ‘bpatcher’
Is it a bug ?

thanx…

PS : MacBook Pro – MacOS 10.5.2

fxw@wanadoo.fr


May 3, 2008 | 10:53 am

On 3 mai 08, at 11:47, Francois Weber wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I join A zip file with 3 patchers
>
> CommentBug : The main patch
> Untitled1 : a Max 5 abstract
> Untitled2 : a Max 4.6.3 abstract
>
> you can see how max 5 use arguments in ‘bpatcher’
> Is it a bug ?

Actually no, it’s a feature. In Max 5 the contents of the comment is
not evaluated anymore. You’ll have to use message box instead if you
want to display it.

ej


May 3, 2008 | 12:06 pm

hi ej …

Ok for the comment object, but what about argument like #1_FXW in ‘Embed in parent’ mode ?

thanx


May 3, 2008 | 4:32 pm

On May 3, 2008, at 2:47 AM, Francois Weber wrote:
> you can see how max 5 use arguments in ‘bpatcher’
> Is it a bug ?

Apparently, it was quirk of the Max 4 parser that the #1 arguments
were ever substituted at all.

I know it’s a drag to have to modify your patchers, but instead of
using comments in Max 5 for things I need to be substituted like this,
I’ve been using message boxes with the background set to transparent.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com

http://www.xfade.com


May 3, 2008 | 10:40 pm

On 3 mai 08, at 18:32, Chris Muir wrote:

> I know it’s a drag to have to modify your patchers, but instead of
> using comments in Max 5 for things I need to be substituted like
> this, I’ve been using message boxes with the background set to
> transparent.

Or a [loadmess set #1-toto] + [comment].

ej


May 4, 2008 | 12:04 am

Ok for the comment object, I understand…
but what about argument like #1_FXW in other objects with ‘Embed in parent’ mode ? ‘(look at my main patch…)

thx

fxw


May 4, 2008 | 12:08 am

On May 3, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Francois Weber wrote:
> Ok for the comment object, but what about argument like #1_FXW in
> ‘Embed in parent’ mode ?

I missed that the first time round.

Yeah, that looks like it might be a bug, I guess, although the rules
for arguments to embedded subpatchers has always been a a bit of a
mystery to me.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com

http://www.xfade.com


May 4, 2008 | 12:45 am

On May 3, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Chris Muir wrote:
> Yeah, that looks like it might be a bug, I guess, although the rules
> for arguments to embedded subpatchers has always been a a bit of a
> mystery to me.

Here I am talking to myself again.

By "bit of a mystery" I don’t mean that I don’t know they work, more
of a mystery of why they were designed that way in the first place,
but that’s lost in time, like tears in rain.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com

http://www.xfade.com


May 4, 2008 | 2:32 am

The more I think about this the more I think it’s just Max 5 being
consistent with how it treats arguments to subpatchers. You wouldn’t
expect arguments to be passed to a subpatcher embedded in a parent
patcher, and this is sort of the same thing.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com

http://www.xfade.com


Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)