Bypass

I want to make list in my folder using jit.cellblock and store it with pattstorage.

Before i used ubumenu but it is not very easy for live performing.

I want to make list in my folder using jit.cellblock and store it with pattstorage.
Before i used ubumenu but it is not very easy for live performing.

jitter-jit-cellblock

> I want to make list in my folder using jit.cellblock and store it 

> Before i used ubumenu but it is not very easy for live performing.

That's a great news:) Do you have a question?

> Hi there,
>
> I want to make list in my folder using jit.cellblock and store it  
> with pattstorage.
> Before i used ubumenu but it is not very easy for live performing.

>>I want to make list in my folder using jit.cellblock and store it 

>>Before i used ubumenu but it is not very easy for live performing.

>>
>>I want to make list in my folder using jit.cellblock and store it 
>>with pattstorage.
>>Before i used ubumenu but it is not very easy for live performing.

Is there a way (like Ubumenu) to load all files in a folder using jit.cellblock ?

In live performance i'de like to see all folder content.

Is there a way (like Ubumenu) to load all files in a folder using jit.cellblock ?
In live performance i'de like to see all folder content.

Try this, I made it really quickly, but it can gives you some ideas...

Try this, I made it really quickly, but it can gives you some ideas...
Cheers.

(btw, why is the 'clear all' message to jit.cellblock not 'clearall' or 'clear_all'?)

Another way:
(btw, why is the 'clear all' message to jit.cellblock not 'clearall' or 'clear_all'?)

I've try you'r patch but it don't work with ".mov".

Thks EJ
I've try you'r patch but it don't work with ".mov".
Anyway thks

I agree, it's not a big deal, but in this case, all and current have then become parameters of the clear message. These cannot be found in the alt-rightclick list. Since you're not going to append either all or current to a clear message (you can, but you might as well put in the two words in a message), I'd argue it's logical to make all commands to objects that don't have parameters one word.

The same way you don't send 'write again' but 'writeagain' to coll. You can also send 'write ' but 'again' doesn't need to be a parameter of the read message.

Oh, it's not that i'm asking you to change anything. I'm just interested whether there are ideas behind things like these to keep everything logical and organised. /rant.

Quote: Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 18:21

----------------------------------------------------

> On 29 mai 07, at 17:36, Bas van der Graaff wrote:

> > (btw, why is the 'clear all' message to jit.cellblock not 

> because you can send "clear current", "clear 1 1"�

Quote: Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 18:21
----------------------------------------------------
> On 29 mai 07, at 17:36, Bas van der Graaff wrote:
>
> > (btw, why is the 'clear all' message to jit.cellblock not  
> > 'clearall' or 'clear_all'?)
>
> because you can send "clear current", "clear 1 1"�
>
> ej
>
----------------------------------------------------


On 30 mai 07, at 10:45, Bas van der Graaff wrote:

> The same way you don't send 'write again' but 'writeagain' to coll. 

> You can also send 'write ' but 'again' doesn't need to be 

If the message was "write" with argument "again" that would mean you 

couldn't use again as a name of file... And I like to name it that 

> Oh, it's not that i'm asking you to change anything. I'm just 

> interested whether there are ideas behind things like these to keep 

> everything logical and organised. /rant.

I think it's more a way to keep it simple, clear is the message, and 

depending on its arguments, it clears different things. Another 

advantage is, there's less messages in the ctrl+alt (alt+right click 

> The same way you don't send 'write again' but 'writeagain' to coll.  
> You can also send 'write ' but 'again' doesn't need to be  
> a parameter of the read message.

If the message was "write" with argument "again" that would mean you  
couldn't  use again as a name of file... And I like to name it that  
way :)

> Oh, it's not that i'm asking you to change anything. I'm just  
> interested whether there are ideas behind things like these to keep  
> everything logical and organised. /rant.

I think it's more a way to keep it simple, clear is the message, and  
depending on its arguments, it clears different things. Another  
advantage is, there's less messages in the ctrl+alt (alt+right click  
on windows) popup menu :)

I wouldn't mind having a 'clear all' -and- a 'clear' message. The latter would clear all too. Just to avoid the reference lookups and of course to make it possible to use trigger..

Quote: Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Wed, 30 May 2007 11:51

> On 30 mai 07, at 10:45, Bas van der Graaff wrote:

> > The same way you don't send 'write again' but 'writeagain' to coll. 

> > You can also send 'write ' but 'again' doesn't need to be 

> If the message was "write" with argument "again" that would mean you 

> couldn't use again as a name of file... And I like to name it that 

> > Oh, it's not that i'm asking you to change anything. I'm just 

> > interested whether there are ideas behind things like these to keep 

> > everything logical and organised. /rant.

> I think it's more a way to keep it simple, clear is the message, and 

> depending on its arguments, it clears different things. Another 

> advantage is, there's less messages in the ctrl+alt (alt+right click 

Quote: Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Wed, 30 May 2007 11:51
----------------------------------------------------
> On 30 mai 07, at 10:45, Bas van der Graaff wrote:
>
> > The same way you don't send 'write again' but 'writeagain' to coll.  
> > You can also send 'write ' but 'again' doesn't need to be  
> > a parameter of the read message.
>
> If the message was "write" with argument "again" that would mean you  
> couldn't  use again as a name of file... And I like to name it that  
> way :)
>
> > Oh, it's not that i'm asking you to change anything. I'm just  
> > interested whether there are ideas behind things like these to keep  
> > everything logical and organised. /rant.
>
> I think it's more a way to keep it simple, clear is the message, and  
> depending on its arguments, it clears different things. Another  
> advantage is, there's less messages in the ctrl+alt (alt+right click  
> on windows) popup menu :)
>
> Cheers,
> ej
>
----------------------------------------------------


On 30 mai 07, at 17:20, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:

> I wouldn't mind having a 'clear all' -and- a 'clear' message. The 

> latter would clear all too. Just to avoid the reference lookups and 

> of course to make it possible to use trigger..

request registered. It won't happen any time soon though.

> I wouldn't mind having a 'clear all' -and- a 'clear' message. The  
> latter would clear all too. Just to avoid the reference lookups and  
> of course to make it possible to use trigger..

Quote: Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Wed, 30 May 2007 17:36

> On 30 mai 07, at 17:20, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:

> > I wouldn't mind having a 'clear all' -and- a 'clear' message. The 

> > latter would clear all too. Just to avoid the reference lookups and 

> > of course to make it possible to use trigger..

> request registered. It won't happen any time soon though.

Quote: Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Wed, 30 May 2007 17:36
----------------------------------------------------
> On 30 mai 07, at 17:20, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't mind having a 'clear all' -and- a 'clear' message. The  
> > latter would clear all too. Just to avoid the reference lookups and  
> > of course to make it possible to use trigger..
>
> request registered. It won't happen any time soon though.
>
> Cheers,
> ej
>
----------------------------------------------------

Jitter jit.cellblock