Wetterberg

so I have this somewhat ugly contraption:

- it's designed to slice a 256-member basically into 8 32-step elements, but in a type of interlaced fashion.

I guess what I'd kill for is a "zl lace" process that allowed me to set the laces, so to speak.

need-help-rearranging-a-long-list

This past post might be applicable (i.e., tweakable) for your task.

This past post might be applicable (i.e., tweakable) for your task.#206698


ah, cool - how does iterating huge lists like this fare in a real-time patch, I wonder.

I wouldn't suggest displaying the result in a message box as I did in that example. But the rest of the operations should be fairly economical, I'd think. And if you know the length of your lists in advance, you can dispense with the zl len object.

(I only just figured out @outsize on unjoin - I think there's still a lot of black box things to discover in Max, many years into it. It's good, keeps us on our toes! :) )

There's Mxj list.multiplex. (And its counterpart list.Demultiplex)

It has variable numbers of inputs. Wish we had a full fledged C implementation of these objects...

There's Mxj list.multiplex.  (And its counterpart list.Demultiplex)

It has variable numbers of inputs.  Wish we had a full fledged C implementation of these objects...


@Peter, yeah I've been playing around with list.multiplex and list.demultiplex since yesterday, but I can't really get it to do the above list conversion - I can set the *amount* of "laces", but if I do list.demultiplex 2 I still get alternating selections only 1 member wide, etc.

Thanks for your version, too Metamax
@Peter, yeah I've been playing around with list.multiplex and list.demultiplex since yesterday, but I can't really get it to do the above list conversion - I can set the *amount* of "laces", but if I do list.demultiplex 2 I still get alternating selections only 1 member wide, etc.


You can always make your own multiplexer.. :)

Need help rearranging a long list