multiple pattrstorages on same patcher level

Nov 28, 2006 at 12:38pm

multiple pattrstorages on same patcher level

Hi,

Is there a way to have 2 independent pattrstorage objects operating
at the same level of a patch? So, for instance: pattrstorage 1
controls a function object and pattrstorage 2 controls all the other
parameters.

With the preset object, this would be a simple matter of using the
“include” and “exclude” outlets. These exist also for the autopattr
object. But not for pattrstorage: it sees all pattr-exposed objects.
Is there some way to get 2 or more pattrstorage objects on the same
patcher level to “share” the pattr-exposed objects – so that each
pattrstorage sees and includes only a certain subset of these objects?

This seems like a very obvious thing to want to do, so I’m hoping
this is a stupid question. Sometimes I have a bit of trouble getting
my head around the pattr logic…

The only workaround I can think of is to put part of the interface
that I want to control separately (the function, in this case) at a
separate patcher level (in a bpatcher, say) and use the “greedy 2″
message to render it invisible to the other pattrstorage. This should
work fine, but seems a little contorted…

Thanks!
Ben

#28931
Nov 28, 2006 at 1:06pm

Am 28.11.2006 um 13:38 schrieb Benjamin Thigpen:

> Is there a way to have 2 independent pattrstorage objects operating
> at the same level of a patch? So, for instance: pattrstorage 1
> controls a function object and pattrstorage 2 controls all the
> other parameters.

Not at this time. For now, you’d have to separate some objects out
into a subpatcher, as you described in your message.

jb

#89336
Nov 28, 2006 at 1:13pm

#89337
Nov 28, 2006 at 1:22pm

Quote: Jeremy Bernstein wrote on Tue, 28 November 2006 14:06
—————————————————-

> Not at this time. For now, you’d have to separate some objects out
> into a subpatcher, as you described in your message.
>

This could be an interesting general question. Should the scope of an object be related to the ‘physical’ level in the patcher hierarchy? For example how should

class something {

var myVar = 0;

function assign(myVar) {
this.myVar = myVar;
}

}

be translated into a max patcher structure?

- Mattijs

ps, why does this forum remove spaces from the start of a line?

#89338
Nov 28, 2006 at 2:48pm

On 28 Nov 2006, at 14:06, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

>
> Am 28.11.2006 um 13:38 schrieb Benjamin Thigpen:
>
>> Is there a way to have 2 independent pattrstorage objects
>> operating at the same level of a patch? So, for instance:
>> pattrstorage 1 controls a function object and pattrstorage 2
>> controls all the other parameters.
>
> Not at this time. For now, you’d have to separate some objects out
> into a subpatcher, as you described in your message.

Ok, thanks. Could you take this as a feature request? ? ? ?? ????

Ben

#89339
Nov 28, 2006 at 2:55pm

#89340
Nov 28, 2006 at 2:56pm

Sure.

jb

Am 28.11.2006 um 15:48 schrieb Benjamin Thigpen:

> On 28 Nov 2006, at 14:06, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 28.11.2006 um 13:38 schrieb Benjamin Thigpen:
>>
>>> Is there a way to have 2 independent pattrstorage objects
>>> operating at the same level of a patch? So, for instance:
>>> pattrstorage 1 controls a function object and pattrstorage 2
>>> controls all the other parameters.
>>
>> Not at this time. For now, you’d have to separate some objects out
>> into a subpatcher, as you described in your message.
>
> Ok, thanks. Could you take this as a feature request? ? ? ?? ????

#89341
Nov 28, 2006 at 3:46pm

#89342
Nov 28, 2006 at 11:04pm

Thanks!
Ben

On 28 Nov 2006, at 15:56, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

> Sure.
>
> jb
>
> Am 28.11.2006 um 15:48 schrieb Benjamin Thigpen:
>
>> On 28 Nov 2006, at 14:06, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 28.11.2006 um 13:38 schrieb Benjamin Thigpen:
>>>
>>>> Is there a way to have 2 independent pattrstorage objects
>>>> operating at the same level of a patch? So, for instance:
>>>> pattrstorage 1 controls a function object and pattrstorage 2
>>>> controls all the other parameters.
>>>
>>> Not at this time. For now, you’d have to separate some objects
>>> out into a subpatcher, as you described in your message.
>>
>> Ok, thanks. Could you take this as a feature request? ? ? ?? ????
>

#89343

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.