bkshepard

I tried this on two different computers. Create a message box and enter the following number 12312312312. As soon as I click out of the message object, the contents of the message change to -572589576. In fact any number that I enter that has more than 10 characters gives a similarly odd response.

I tried this on two different computers. Create a message box and enter the following number 12312312312. As soon as I click out of the message object, the contents of the message change to -572589576.  In fact any number that I enter that has more than 10 characters gives a similarly odd response.

strange-message-object-behavior

Probably max doesn't accept very large numbers, but i didn't find anything about this in the reference.

The same with number box.
Probably max doesn't accept very large numbers, but i didn't find anything about this in the reference.


The highest int you can type into a number box is 2147483647, and the lowest is -2147483648 which gives a total range of 4294967296 discrete values (including the number zero). That number happens to be 2^32... so evidently integers are represented as 32-bit binary numbers within max.

It's in tutorial 3, but [int]'s reference also says:

: A number is stored in (and output from) 

maaaxit wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 11:22
Probably max doesn't accept very large numbers, but i didn't find anything about this in the reference.

Outputint: A number is stored in (and output from) int as a long (32-bit) integer.

That's another dollar for Peter Castine.


Man, and I didn't even have to do anything this time!-)

And the Tutorials are referenced without Gregory having to write anything!

Don't get me wrong, but Peter is only supposed to get 1 box for floating points numbers as far as I remember 

Thanks for the explanation. However, my original question was about a message box, not a number or int. I may be missing it, but I don't see anywhere in the message reference documentation something that says message is limited to 32 bit numbers. Obviously, that seems to be the case, it just doesn't appear to be documented in the reference.

This was also a good reminder to re-read the tutorials. It's been more than 15 years since I did the Max tutorials and I'm afraid a lot has leaked out of this brain in the interim! 

Thanks for the explanation. However, my original question was about a message box, not a number or int.  I may be missing it, but I don't see anywhere in the message reference documentation something that says message is limited to 32 bit numbers.  Obviously, that seems to be the case, it just doesn't appear to be documented in the reference.

This was also a good reminder to re-read the tutorials.  It's been more than 15 years since I did the Max tutorials and I'm afraid a lot has leaked out of this brain in the interim! 


If you type a number in a message box it will act like one in a [number] or [flonum] box. If you want to display a number out of the 2^32 range then you'll have to turn it into a symbol using [tosymbol] or by enclosing it in "quotes". However you then won't be able to send it to any of the number processing objects like [+] or [expr].

Does the same 32 bit apply to regexp? Here's how this whole thing started. I'm trying to come to a better understanding of how regexp works, so I made myself a little test: create a [regexp] that strips all the special characters and spaces out of a telephone number so that all you are left with is just the numbers in a continuous string. For example (888) 555-1234, or 888-555-1234, or 888.555-1234, or any such format all end up as 8885551234. Because that is a number that exceeds 2^32, I understand it needs to be converted to a symbol. I'm fine with that, but it seems that either regexp is converting the number before the "tosymbol" attribute, or I'm not doing it right. Given my status at the lower stages of the regexp learning curve, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's my fault. Could someone point me in the right directions. Here's what I have created thus far. Thanks.

Does the same 32 bit apply to regexp?  Here's how this whole thing started.  I'm trying to come to a better understanding of how regexp works, so I made myself a little test: create a [regexp] that strips all the special characters and spaces out of a telephone number so that all you are left with is just the numbers in a continuous string.  For example (888) 555-1234, or 888-555-1234, or 888.555-1234, or any such format all end up as 8885551234. Because that is a number that exceeds 2^32, I understand it needs to be converted to a symbol.  I'm fine with that, but it seems that either regexp is converting the number before the "tosymbol" attribute, or I'm not doing it right. Given my status at the lower stages of the regexp learning curve, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's my fault.  Could someone point me in the right directions.  Here's what I have created thus far.  Thanks.

You could always use [regexp] and [combine] as a workaround.

Thanks, lh! I had actually come up with a similar workaround that used a slightly different expression to achieve the same end.

I'm still puzzled, though, as to why the "tosymbol" attribute in my other version doesn't seem to work. Thanks again!

Thanks, lh!  I had actually come up with a similar workaround that used a slightly different expression to achieve the same end.

I'm still puzzled, though, as to why the "tosymbol" attribute in my other version doesn't seem to work.  Thanks again!


The string \b is a word boundary, the opposite is \B. Here is a tutorial that I really should get around to finishing explaining and demonstrating some regular expressions in max. Word boundaries are mentioned on the "Anchors" page currently, I think.

http://www.thelightningbolts.com/luke/regexes/regexp_tutorial_online.maxpat

Man, that is incredibly helpful!!! I'm going to spend some time poring over that. I've been really trying to come to terms with [regexp] and your tutorial will be a great time saver. Thanks so much!

Man, that is incredibly helpful!!!  I'm going to spend some time poring over that.  I've been really trying to come to terms with [regexp] and your tutorial will be a great time saver.  Thanks so much!


Thanks for the report. This has been fixed for the next update.

A number is a number is a number is a number is a number is a number. -- Gertrude "Ms. Max/MSP" Stein.

@ej: Ouais, j'ai prems aussi sur les questions des nombres entiers 32-bit.

(Just learned the FR for "I dibs...", so had to use it)

 Any text you type into a box in Max is parsed.


 When parsing text, Max attempts to interpret any string of digits (w/option leading minus & decimal point) as a number.


@ej: Ouais, j'ai prems aussi sur les questions des nombres entiers 32-bit. 

Peter Castine wrote on Tue, 26 May 2009 10:49

Unless, of course, it's a symbol. Which is what I was attempting to get [regexp] to do with the tosymbol attribute.

Peter Castine wrote on Tue, 26 May 2009 10:49A number is a number is a number is a number is a number is a number. -- Gertrude "Ms. Max/MSP" Stein.

Unless, of course, it's a symbol.  Which is what I was attempting to get [regexp] to do with the tosymbol attribute.


bkshepard wrote on Tue, 26 May 2009 21:53Peter Castine wrote on Tue, 26 May 2009 10:49

Gertrude was, as I recall, much more interested in beauty and aesthetics than mere 'truth'.

Yes, of course you can enclose a string of digits inside quotation marks, or use tosymbol in sprintf & Co. Then you get a symbol. That may be cool, or it may be a bummer when you try to add two symbols.

Seriously: your point is absolutely correct, Brian. But I think OP's expressed surprise indicated that he didn't really understand that in Max pretty much everything gets parsed and tokenized. Understanding that is really important for working effectively in Max.

bkshepard wrote on Tue, 26 May 2009 21:53Peter Castine wrote on Tue, 26 May 2009 10:49A number is a number is a number is a number is a number is a number. -- Gertrude "Ms. Max/MSP" Stein.

Unless, of course, it's a symbol.  Which is what I was attempting to get [regexp] to do with the tosymbol attribute.

Seriously: your point is absolutely correct, Brian. But I think OP's expressed surprise indicated that he didn't really understand that in Max pretty much everything gets parsed and tokenized. Understanding that is really important for working effectively in Max.


Peter Castine wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 14:16

sometimes i wonder what the limit for letters in max is.

yesterday i was typing "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"

in a messagebox, and as soon as i clicked out it changed to "NaW".

Peter Castine wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 14:16Man, and I didn't even have to do anything this time!-)

yesterday i was typing "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"
in a messagebox, and as soon as i clicked out it changed to "NaW".

That's strange indeed, i never knew this either. 

When i type "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" in a message box it shows up as "NaW". But when you put a 256 behind it, apparently the maximum length of the string is raised and it will work fine. Don't think i ever saw it in the tutorials but when using really long words it can come in handy.

That's strange indeed, i never knew this either. 
When i type "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" in a message box it shows up as "NaW". But when you put a 256 behind it, apparently the maximum length of the string is raised and it will work fine. Don't think i ever saw it in the tutorials but when using really long words it can come in handy.


It works fine here with Max 5.0.7. The symbols are currently limited to 2048 characters as far as I remember.

I can confirm, when I type "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" in a message box without quotes, it converts to NaW. I assume this is an issue with the symbol table not accepting words with a difficulty higher than 1024. Btw with quotes everything works fine.

ugh, which version is that? Max 5.07 is also known as 38325/38327.

Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Wed, 27 May 2009 15:52Quote:

Version 31337 is the secret elite version of Max that was issued only to geeks who mastered the special art of the ultimately useless conversation on the Cycling '74 forums. It has special features, such as NaW.

Emmanuel Jourdan wrote on Wed, 27 May 2009 15:52Quote:Max 31337

Version 31337 is the secret elite version of Max that was issued only to geeks who mastered the special art of the ultimately useless conversation on the Cycling '74 forums. It has special features, such as NaW.


Just in case some people aren't recognizing the humor in the above, the 5-digit build number is listed in parentheses after the version number in the Finder's Get Info Window. It's also visible in the About Max window.

I have a 5.0.3 lying around with build number 35560. So 31337 is really old... 5.0.1? 5.0? Pre-release beta copy?

Mattijs wrote on Thu, 28 May 2009 14:44Version 31337 is the secret elite version of Max that was issued only to geeks who mastered the special art of the ultimately useless conversation on the Cycling '74 forums. It has special features, such as NaW.

Just in case some people aren't recognizing the humor in the above, the 5-digit build number is listed in parentheses after the version number in the Finder's Get Info Window. It's also visible in the About Max window. 

I have a 5.0.3 lying around with build number 35560. So 31337 is really old... 5.0.1? 5.0? Pre-release beta copy?


Peter Castine wrote on Fri, 29 May 2009 13:27

I don't think 31337 has ever existed, it's a number that real nerds are supposed to recognize as ELEET, hinting that the entire discussion was bogus. Poor EJ and Peter, you guys clearly see too much daylight.

Peter Castine wrote on Fri, 29 May 2009 13:27
I have a 5.0.3 lying around with build number 35560. So 31337 is really old... 5.0.1? 5.0? Pre-release beta copy? 

I can't remember the last time someone told me I wasn't sufficiently nerdy.

I don't think 31337 has ever existed, it's a number that real nerds are supposed to recognize as ELEET

and it goes back on a windows trojan proof 

Mattijs wrote on Sat, 30 May 2009 17:46
I don't think 31337 has ever existed, it's a number that real nerds are supposed to recognize as ELEET

and it goes back on a windows trojan proof 
which was using 31337 as port number.


Strange Message Object Behavior