Duplicated structures without interferences using "—-" ?
#0 is a way to give specific names to objets within a subpatch to avoid interferences between multiple instances. However as it implies random numbers, I remember that a long time ago it was possible to use "—-" as a prefix to achieve the same results.
It doesn’t seem to work anymore. Or am I using it the wrong way?
----------begin_max5_patcher---------- 685.3oc6VssiZCCD84vWQjelEkXHKs8s9crpB4Da.25XG43vR6p8euNNWvNh TBrrsqTMOXHyMOyYlIbdYV.HUbjTBB+R3SgAAuLKHvHpVPP6yAfbzwLFpzXF Hs.ox1Sjf4MJI4oDbsl3VAF8T9tMRRlpIxqhiVDMOLYc8Y7iep9K3R8Sgeq0 oTgDqioUXnlfBDoe+gkc2EuJmxYDkISh5DhxINY1FEoTsQQkZCWnycsXq.Hp TCi.RtqEB5ymBIojvUHEUvGqPhZON4TKxz.dsnW.XKkQNPjk5PYUfAfq.ez. ztLASHarO1XW+QjqgLQ1OZZIQcBwjsW0sIJH7SNDYWsCttZKoba3Z3EipXpM aEbUI8WlFULbwY0uEkQF049t7WkTDCzYxNIEK30Igim0h6tNMbkXpzD671XA GUbFmUBAKEIOPKooLhSKSuZf3zbjhnnM4CLp2OZdgjxUNwhvQ5XruLSJXLmP 0n4vYzfIGnYjmoX0dSrNgVNKqViXNKsNxGr7pm+S6WcGaaMwzkiW+YyTh4An cOev1Yhc3b1PicUXs4AszLd20LeYbR8yh1dInFgmqW1Q7c.mTZ3HVmlWmMq6 GyeWgMyt3R3zPsU+GfZjm0UpcZoHGMfEPF9f9CqhUMsYwUlM3D3kPU3nnZzn nZ7sipeDfR86cwSFMMinqSNc9m.y3aXDMZxf4DPqSuslQ4i8hOSYVq+7vXon Rl00uZW7BcKYrlt.k2+eWO0W8CraOEic+qBSehhKD50qdFDSpsesYMbhYcxc LqaE1Hwb1TIuWrDgKW8VXIB+vvRzoPterDuH9bWYINgayyRzyRzyRzyRzyRz yRzyRzyR7uBKwjGeKjDi+GPR7V46coJ8tR26xWlmsmmsmmsmmsmmsmmsmmsm msWOaOsrWm8aI39V6B -----------end_max5_patcher-----------
"—" only worked in the pluggo context (it now works in Max for Live). If you want to have independent bpatchers, you can use #0, if you want them all to communicate, pass an argument to the bpatchers, and grab it with #1.
Ok thanks !
hi emanuel. i knew all this. but when vizzie was released i noticed that it too uses "—". seeing as vizzie is just a collection of bpatchers, how is it using the "—"? i asked this in another thread but no-one picked up. i’d be interested if there was a way to utilise it in a vizzie-like context. could you clarify?
The original idea was that this would be a polite thing to do for Max for Live users. The unintended consequence of this would-be act of charity was that it implied to Max users that — worked in Max proper, which (as my colleague Emmanuel has pointed out) isn’t so. In any case, it works fine – it merely confuses people who actually write and look at Max patches, which would seem to argue for its elimination. :-)
thanks gregory. funny, i really enjoy reading your replies when they are directed at someone else, but directed at me and i just think, well, that was completely useless and cryptic. so, anyone else wanna reply? preferably in english equipped for a 2 year old to understand?
in frenglish, it sounds like this… The — used in vizzie actually don’t do anything specific. But it’ll make your life easier if you want to use vizzie modules in the Max for Live context.
Was that clear?
yes very! i get it now… thanks.
#0 is a way to give specific names to objets within a subpatch to avoid interferences between multiple instances. However as it implies random numbers
I don’t think, that #0 is generated randomly…it should be perfectly unique for every open patch (but could well be different every time a patch is opened).
#0 value starts at 1000 or something, and each time a new abstraction requires it, the value is incremented. So unless you have the habit to give names of your send/receive (and whatnot) object which start with a number >1000 you are safe.