Forums > MaxMSP

On my V5 wish list: Adding a trigger

January 16, 2007 | 2:29 am

Oh how I wish you could add another bang or int (or l or s or whatever) to a trigger object at its LEFT end just as easily as you can at the RIGHT end. (I envision control-clicking the trigger and seeing a menu item "Insert trigger outlet…" and all your connectors politely scoot over one spot like guests on Merv Griffin’s sofa.) Since MAX works right to left, I find the end of a trigger is often the most convenient place to patch in a new routine. I can either hook a second trigger off the first trigger’s leftmost outlet, which is OK but sloppy, or cut&paste & rewrite the trigger and reconnect the whole set of cords, which is annoying.

Would such an addition to the way trigger objects work involve hideous amounts of low-level re-coding?


January 16, 2007 | 3:23 am

Like the idea. I guess adding two or three unused bangs in the left part of the object to begin with is a workaround, you could change them later if need be. The cascading triggers is also a good step.

It’s a good question about the re-coding–I imagine it might involve some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself, but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord parameters in the file — dunno how those connections could be automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger’s outlets change due to adding more of them.

-C



f.e
January 16, 2007 | 7:54 am

I second that, clearly.

Changing a thing in a trigger is a nightmare. And to make clean patches,
you use a lot of triggers, and you rewrite them a lot, and at a time,
you’re head is blowing, you don’t remember the complex mechanism you had
before and you stop doing max for ever, you take a plane to Siracusa
(not in the us) and have a granita a la mandorla…

f.e

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
> >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

David Wright wrote:
> Oh how I wish you could add another bang or int (or l or s or whatever) to a trigger object at its LEFT end just as easily as you can at the RIGHT end. (I envision control-clicking the trigger and seeing a menu item "Insert trigger outlet…" and all your connectors politely scoot over one spot like guests on Merv Griffin’s sofa.) Since MAX works right to left, I find the end of a trigger is often the most convenient place to patch in a new routine. I can either hook a second trigger off the first trigger’s leftmost outlet, which is OK but sloppy, or cut&paste & rewrite the trigger and reconnect the whole set of cords, which is annoying.
>
> Would such an addition to the way trigger objects work involve hideous amounts of low-level re-coding?
>
>


January 16, 2007 | 4:06 pm

Seejay James wrote:
> It’s a good question about the re-coding–I imagine it might involve
> some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself,
> but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord
> parameters in the file — dunno how those connections could be
> automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger’s outlets change
> due to adding more of them.

It would require a change deep in the Max application. This request is
not about trigger, its about how a given connection should behave when I
change the number of inputs. For sure its not an easy task to implement…

Till now there was only one single rule: keep the connections according
to their order.
What you want: keep the connections according to their meaning. But
thats difficult I guess.
In the case of trigger/route/sel/ and alike (all objects which have one
parameter connected to one outlet) it would be helpfull if the existing
connections stay connected to their parameters. If I add a parameter in
the middle it would create an outlet in the middle (or reconnect
everything according to the point of change…)
This sounds not too easy for me, but who knows, at least imaginable and
it would be convenient for sure…

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com


January 16, 2007 | 6:06 pm

perhaps someone can write a clever bit of javascript to add the
parameter and realign all of the connections appropriately?

A

On 1/16/07, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> Seejay James wrote:
> > It’s a good question about the re-coding–I imagine it might involve
> > some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself,
> > but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord
> > parameters in the file — dunno how those connections could be
> > automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger’s outlets change
> > due to adding more of them.
>
> It would require a change deep in the Max application. This request is
> not about trigger, its about how a given connection should behave when I
> change the number of inputs. For sure its not an easy task to implement…
>
> Till now there was only one single rule: keep the connections according
> to their order.
> What you want: keep the connections according to their meaning. But
> thats difficult I guess.
> In the case of trigger/route/sel/ and alike (all objects which have one
> parameter connected to one outlet) it would be helpfull if the existing
> connections stay connected to their parameters. If I add a parameter in
> the middle it would create an outlet in the middle (or reconnect
> everything according to the point of change…)
> This sounds not too easy for me, but who knows, at least imaginable and
> it would be convenient for sure…
>
> Stefan
>
> –
> Stefan Tiedje————x——-
> –_____———–|————–
> –(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
> — _|_)—-|—–()————–
> ———-()——–www.ccmix.com
>
>

http://www.overwhelmed.org/anthony


Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)