Private send & receive

Sep 18, 2006 at 3:13pm

Private send & receive

I want to create local (private) connections between a parent patch and its
subpatches. Is there a method whereby send and receive objects can be
privatized to a patch and its subpatches as does pv?

I know about #0 but that is not doing the job.

Cheers
Gary Lee Nelson
Oberlin College
http://www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson

#27671
Sep 18, 2006 at 3:42pm

Im assuming it has to be dynamic, otherwise inlets/outlets would be
the obvious choice. Scripting the creation of inlets and outlets and
connecting them wont work?

Im guessing that you dont want to use send/receive because more than
one sub patcher will also get the message, or you want to send to a
group of subpatchers at the same time, but not at once?

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info

On Sep 18, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Gary Lee Nelson wrote:

> I want to create local (private) connections between a parent patch
> and its
> subpatches. Is there a method whereby send and receive objects can be
> privatized to a patch and its subpatches as does pv?
>
> I know about #0 but that is not doing the job.
>
> Cheers
> Gary Lee Nelson
> Oberlin College
> http://www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson
>
>

#83937
Sep 18, 2006 at 3:48pm

#83938
Sep 18, 2006 at 3:51pm

> I know about #0 but that is not doing the job.

In what way not doing the job? This should work…..

Sorry if any of this seems obvious or if your problem is different, but i think these are all the things you need to consider when using #0

To use #0 you would need to load the patch by having it as an abstraction in another patch, or by sending load “mypatch” to pcontrol.

You also need to have it as the beginning of a symbol argument. You cannot just put #0 as your send name – max doesn’t seem to like that!

If you have any abstractions as subpatches they will return a different value for #0 than the main patch which also could be a problem.

Other than these points I can’t think of any other reason why #0 would not work. Maybe I’ve missed something….

Alex

#83939
Sep 18, 2006 at 4:22pm

#83940
Sep 18, 2006 at 4:33pm

The syntax is “parent::othersubpatch::foo”!

jb

Am 18.09.2006 um 18:22 schrieb Gary Lee Nelson:

> That looks promising. What I really need is something that will send
> messages between subpatches. I can’t seem to find the correct
> syntax for a
> message like “send parent othersubpatch::foo”

#83941
Sep 18, 2006 at 5:28pm

On 18.09.2006, at 18:22, Gary Lee Nelson wrote:

> That looks promising. What I really need is something that will send
> messages between subpatches.

wouldn’t the new ‘pattrmarker’ object (found on jeremy’s c74-sharing-
page) help to make this even easier?

jan

#83942
Sep 18, 2006 at 5:39pm

why can’t you just use #1-type arguments to the subpatches? (if
they’re abstractions, obviously…)

M

On Sep 18, 2006, at 12:33, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

> The syntax is “parent::othersubpatch::foo”!
>
> jb
>
> Am 18.09.2006 um 18:22 schrieb Gary Lee Nelson:
>
>> That looks promising. What I really need is something that will send
>> messages between subpatches. I can’t seem to find the correct
>> syntax for a
>> message like “send parent othersubpatch::foo”
>
>
>

#83943
Sep 19, 2006 at 12:52pm

#83944
Sep 20, 2006 at 4:54pm

Gary Lee Nelson wrote:
> That looks promising. What I really need is something that will send
> messages between subpatches. I can’t seem to find the correct syntax for a
> message like “send parent othersubpatch::foo”

with the new pattrmarker and pattrforward it would work:

put [pattermarker othersubpatch] into your othersubpatch and send
messages to the object named “foo” inside othersubpatcher with
[pattrforward ::othersubpatch::foo]

I don’t need to send a patch, as the pattrmarker.help will do.
You should find it at Jeremy Bernsteins share page…
This is much more solid than pv, #1 and other old style ways to do it.
Jeremy created the ultimate access to the only real local variables in
Max: the object names…
(pv allows only one instance (undocumented) which is a shame…)

Stefan


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

#83945
Oct 16, 2006 at 12:34pm

I should have said that I UNDERSTAND #0. I was making a version of my
random objects entirely as abstractions. All of them share the same seed
which is easy in the external (recently posted). Without private sends and
receives I had to use pv and send through objects named #0sender and
#0receiver (or what ever names). I used a pv to broadcast the value created
to replace #0.

Anyway, the problem is solved by updating my objects to UB with Xcode.

Still think private send and receive would be a good idea.

On 9/18/06 11:51 AM, “Alex Harker” wrote:

>
>
>
>> I know about #0 but that is not doing the job.
>
> In what way not doing the job? This should work…..
>
> Sorry if any of this seems obvious or if your problem is different, but i
> think these are all the things you need to consider when using #0
>
> To use #0 you would need to load the patch by having it as an abstraction in
> another patch, or by sending load “mypatch” to pcontrol.
>
> You also need to have it as the beginning of a symbol argument. You cannot
> just put #0 as your send name – max doesn’t seem to like that!
>
> If you have any abstractions as subpatches they will return a different value
> for #0 than the main patch which also could be a problem.
>
> Other than these points I can’t think of any other reason why #0 would not
> work. Maybe I’ve missed something….
>
>
> Alex

Cheers
Gary Lee Nelson
Oberlin College
http://www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson

#83946
Oct 18, 2006 at 3:48pm

Gary Lee Nelson wrote:
> Still think private send and receive would be a good idea.

pattr system, especially pattrforward which can talk directly to named
objects…
And pv of course… (might be short for private value)

Stefan


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

#83947

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.