toggle doesn't act intuitive

Feb 6, 2007 at 4:07pm

toggle doesn't act intuitive

Hi,

I had several occasions where this became a problem and has cost time:

#P number 155 139 35 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 221 221 221 222 222 222 0 0 0;
#P toggle 155 122 15 0;
#P number 155 105 35 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 221 221 221 222 222 222 0 0 0;
#P connect 1 0 2 0;
#P connect 0 0 1 0;

I think this behaviour is not intuitive. I expect that I can depend on the output of the interface object to be within the user input range.

Best,
Mattijs

#30145
Feb 6, 2007 at 4:11pm

Yeah, it should be outputting just 1 or 0. Nice find…., but you’re too late!! TOO LATE!! MUAHAHAHA!!

#95738
Feb 6, 2007 at 4:30pm

>
>I think this behaviour is not intuitive. I expect that I can depend
>on the output of the interface object to be within the user input
>range.

it works as explained in the help patch….

best

kasper

Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer

http://www.sleazeArt.com

http://www.myspace.com/sleazeart

#95739
Feb 6, 2007 at 4:52pm

Quote: _jamez_ wrote on Tue, 06 February 2007 17:11
—————————————————-
> Yeah, it should be outputting just 1 or 0. Nice find…., but you’re too late!! TOO LATE!! MUAHAHAHA!!
—————————————————-

(wait, maybe this secret switch toggles the auto destruct function. If only I could break the 512 bit code.. 10 seconds before impact.. I have to trust the feedback of this panel completely. If there is only one mistake we’re all doomed)

Mattijs

#95740
Feb 6, 2007 at 5:00pm

Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Tue, 06 February 2007 17:30
—————————————————-
> >
> >I think this behaviour is not intuitive. I expect that I can depend
> >on the output of the interface object to be within the user input
> >range.
>
>
> it works as explained in the help patch….

I does, but it shouldn’t!

>
> best
>
> kasper
> —
> Kasper T. Toeplitz
> noise, composition, bass, computer
> http://www.sleazeArt.com
>
> http://www.myspace.com/sleazeart
>
>
—————————————————-

#95741
Feb 6, 2007 at 5:57pm

This is all within the user input range – any non-zero number turns
it on, zero turns it off – it passes the input on to the output.

From the Max Reference manual:

Input int The number is sent out the outlet. If the number is not 0,
toggle displays an X, showing it is on. If it is 0, toggle is blank,
showing it is off.

Output int A number received in the inlet is sent out the outlet. A
bang or a mouse click sends 1 or 0 out the outlet, depending on
whether toggle is being turned on or off.

On Feb 6, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:

>
> I think this behaviour is not intuitive. I expect that I can depend
> on the output of the interface object to be within the user input
> range.
>

—-
Steven M. Miller

Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>

#95742
Feb 6, 2007 at 6:44pm

On 6-Feb-2007, at 18:00, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
> I does, but it shouldn’t!

The extent to which toggle’s behavior is confusing is inversely
proportional to how deeply your consciousness is imbued with C’s
bastard concept of “Boolean”.

IOW: this is great for those who think C/C++ is the best programming
language ever to grace this planet. All a matter of taste (or lack
thereof).

————– http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ————-
Peter Castine +–> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
Universal Binaries on the way
iCE: Sequencing, Recording &
Interface Building for |home | chez nous|
Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|
http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de

#95743
Feb 6, 2007 at 11:53pm

Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
> I had several occasions where this became a problem and has cost
> time:

but only within the first half year of Max usage, then you know it by
heart… ;-)

This can’t be changed, as a lot of ancient patches rely on that
behaviour. There are occasions where its helpfull, if you need to
restrict it, pass it throug a [!= 0] object, if you always need the
restriction, create a clipping…

Stefan


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

#95744
Feb 7, 2007 at 12:06am

On 6 Feb 2007, at 23:53, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

> Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>> I had several occasions where this became a problem and has cost
>> time:
>
> but only within the first half year of Max usage, then you know it
> by heart… ;-)

You say that, but I read and worked through the manuals religiously
about 8 years ago – and i had totally missed (or forgotten) the pass-
through value bit. Which explains some problems I was having
recently. Max is just so cool! So much stuff, so much depth.
(ok – time to go to bed now)

:-)

David

#95745
Feb 7, 2007 at 9:04am

Quote: smill wrote on Tue, 06 February 2007 18:57
—————————————————-
> This is all within the user input range – any non-zero number turns
> it on, zero turns it off – it passes the input on to the output.

I’m sorry, I meant user interface input range. It’s an interface object, after all.

>
> From the Max Reference manual:
>
> Input int The number is sent out the outlet. If the number is not 0,
> toggle displays an X, showing it is on. If it is 0, toggle is blank,
> showing it is off.
>
> Output int A number received in the inlet is sent out the outlet. A
> bang or a mouse click sends 1 or 0 out the outlet, depending on
> whether toggle is being turned on or off.

Hey, I’m not saying that toggle is buggy. I’m only saying that a user interface element has the primary goal to reflect the state of the program on the screen as well as possible. And I think it could do that better than it currently does, by limiting its output to 0 and 1.

I don’t think it can be changed, but well.. maybe it’s nice input for future interface considerations.

Cheers,
Mattijs

>
>
> On Feb 6, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>
> >
> > I think this behaviour is not intuitive. I expect that I can depend
> > on the output of the interface object to be within the user input
> > range.
> >
>
> —-
> Steven M. Miller
>
> Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
> SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
> Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
> OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>
>
>
>
>
—————————————————-

#95746
Feb 7, 2007 at 9:23am

> Hey, I’m not saying that toggle is buggy. I’m only saying that a user interface element has the primary goal to reflect the state of the program on the screen as well as possible. And I think it could do that better than it currently does, by limiting its output to 0 and 1.
>
So you may use a matrix control, with # as much as you need # button
states. And if reflecting the state of the program is your only goal,
use a numbox then…

Toggle means toggle between one state to another, not travel between
different states. It’s a boolean object and i think it’s sexy.

f.e
> I don’t think it can be changed, but well.. maybe it’s nice input for future interface considerations.
>
> Cheers,
> Mattijs
>
>
>> On Feb 6, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think this behaviour is not intuitive. I expect that I can depend
>>> on the output of the interface object to be within the user input
>>> range.
>>>
>>>
>> —-
>> Steven M. Miller
>>
>> Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
>> SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
>> Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
>> OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> —————————————————-
>
>
> –
> SmadSteck –
http://www.smadsteck.nl
> Interactive audiovisual sampling soft- and hardware
>
>
>

#95747
Feb 7, 2007 at 9:35am

Quote: Peter Castine wrote on Tue, 06 February 2007 19:44
—————————————————-
> On 6-Feb-2007, at 18:00, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
> > I does, but it shouldn’t!
>
> The extent to which toggle’s behavior is confusing is inversely
> proportional to how deeply your consciousness is imbued with C’s
> bastard concept of “Boolean”.

You’re right, toggle shows “input ? 1 : 0″ and outputs the input. I use the open interpretation of ‘boolean’ in C often to save lines. But when it comes to interface elements I tend to literally believe what they say. C code officially doesn’t promise anything from its appearance while toggle does.

>
> IOW: this is great for those who think C/C++ is the best programming
> language ever to grace this planet. All a matter of taste (or lack
> thereof).
>
> ————– http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ————-
> Peter Castine +–> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
> Universal Binaries on the way
> iCE: Sequencing, Recording &
> Interface Building for |home | chez nous|
> Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|
> http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de
>
>
>
—————————————————-

#95748
Feb 7, 2007 at 11:18am

Please excuse the grammatical rectification of the subject. At least
we’ve now got syntax down, I won’t start about semantics…

On 7-Feb-2007, at 10:04, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:

> I’m only saying that a user interface element has the primary goal
> to reflect the state of the program on the screen as well as
> possible. And I think it could do that better than it currently
> does, by limiting its output to 0 and 1.

Again, from the perspective of a red-blooded C programmer, toggle’s
display reflects its state admirably. Zero is false, anything else is
true. Conversely: false/off is zero; true/on is anything else.

One just needs the One True Religion in which the Holy Trinity is
Brian K., Dennis R., and your compiler (which is probably not
compliant, but when did religious fundamentalists ever worry about
consistency?).

It’s all a matter of perspective.

> I don’t think it can be changed, but well.. maybe it’s nice input
> for future interface considerations.

I could imagine an Inspector for toggle with a ‘Constrain Output to
Canonical Values (Zero and One)’ control. This would be a toggle (of
course) sending, say, a ‘constrain $1′ message.

Of course, the default state would have to be ‘constrain 0′, and in
five years’ time there will be uncounted threads about “why is the
damn default ‘constrain state’ for toggle off?”

There are days when I don’t envy DDZ and his crew of merry pirates.
Yo-ho-ho.

————– http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ————-
Peter Castine +–> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
Universal Binaries on the way
iCE: Sequencing, Recording &
Interface Building for |home | chez nous|
Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|
http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de

#95749
Feb 7, 2007 at 11:29am

Quote: Peter Castine wrote on Wed, 07 February 2007 12:18
—————————————————-
> Please excuse the grammatical rectification of the subject. At least
> we’ve now got syntax down, I won’t start about semantics…
>

Thanks! Please, PLEASE correct my english. Maybe it’s this obsession for correct syntax, but I really hate language mistakes, especially if I’m the one that makes them.

> On 7-Feb-2007, at 10:04, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>
> > I’m only saying that a user interface element has the primary goal
> > to reflect the state of the program on the screen as well as
> > possible. And I think it could do that better than it currently
> > does, by limiting its output to 0 and 1.
>
> Again, from the perspective of a red-blooded C programmer, toggle’s
> display reflects its state admirably. Zero is false, anything else is
> true. Conversely: false/off is zero; true/on is anything else.
>
> One just needs the One True Religion in which the Holy Trinity is
> Brian K., Dennis R., and your compiler (which is probably not
> compliant, but when did religious fundamentalists ever worry about
> consistency?).
>
> It’s all a matter of perspective.
>
> > I don’t think it can be changed, but well.. maybe it’s nice input
> > for future interface considerations.
>
> I could imagine an Inspector for toggle with a ‘Constrain Output to
> Canonical Values (Zero and One)’ control. This would be a toggle (of
> course) sending, say, a ‘constrain $1′ message.
>
> Of course, the default state would have to be ‘constrain 0′, and in
> five years’ time there will be uncounted threads about “why is the
> damn default ‘constrain state’ for toggle off?”
>
> There are days when I don’t envy DDZ and his crew of merry pirates.
> Yo-ho-ho.
>
> ————– http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ————-
> Peter Castine +–> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
> Universal Binaries on the way
> iCE: Sequencing, Recording &
> Interface Building for |home | chez nous|
> Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|
> http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de
>
>
>
—————————————————-

#95750

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.