Cycling 74 » Topic: use #0 in an abstraction for tables http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/feed Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:06:31 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=2.2.4 http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-53818 <![CDATA[use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-53818 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:39:31 +0000 moze Hello,
Can we use 0 in an abstraction for tables? To me, it does not work, all the tables one them even values…
Thank you

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193697 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193697 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:32:14 +0000 jvkr It seems to work. As long as you make sure to make a symbol using the #0. Try this: [table #0t]
_
johan

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193698 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193698 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:34:48 +0000 moze thank you
i’m going to try,

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193699 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193699 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 21:45:08 +0000 moze I do not understand it does not work,
Here are examples:

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –

abstraction :

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –
]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193700 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193700 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:29:31 +0000 Ben Bracken It appears as if you are using a #1 arg, but not giving your bpatchers any arguments. If you don’t want to specify an argument and want a random one, use #0 instead of #1-#9.

-Ben

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193701 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193701 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:34:28 +0000 Roman Thilenius it is not enough to know that it is #0, you must also be able to remeber that when typing it. :)

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193702 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193702 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:12:17 +0000 moze I believe that I do not understand all the subtilitées concerning the abstractions particullary in the use of the #
With #0, it me good attribute a random number, but the contents of tables remain identical.
(sorry for bad english)

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193703 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193703 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:17:31 +0000 mudang smells rather buggy over here (5.1.6)…

[table #0t] from different patchers all refer to the same table. When double clicking to it’s content, the window’s name is always #0t !

Also, the name attribute is not working.
Try changing it in the inspector…won’t do…

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193704 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193704 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:54:42 +0000 Emmanuel Jourdan It works here. Be careful you seem to have 2 table objects:

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –
]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193705 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193705 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:38:12 +0000 mudang ahh ok, i’ve found the feature ;)

I always had the original patch with [table #0t] open.
So there actually was a table with the name #0t.

Funnilly, the tables inside the instances of the abstractions [table 1002-t], [table 1003-t]…all refer to [table #0t].

If I open the mother-patch, containing the abstractions, _first_ and then the original abstraction patch, this is not the case!

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193706 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193706 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:51:02 +0000 moze I tried the operation of mudang, despair! always the same table for 3 abstractions,
Thank you for your help!

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193707 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193707 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:46:41 +0000 seejayjames how about using #1t and being sure you give each abstraction an argument? that should work…

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193708 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193708 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:21:14 +0000 moze Well, I used #1 with arguments, tables are correctly named in the patch a mother, when I open them, they are not more than one

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –
]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193709 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193709 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:09:47 +0000 Emmanuel Jourdan Let’s recap a bit…

“table #1something”: the #1 part will be replaced by whatever the argument of the abstraction/bpatcher is.
“table #0something”: the #0 will be replaced by an unique number (each abstraction/bpatcher instance will have a different number)

Note that in order to work properly the #n needs to be the first thing of a symbol.

Hope this clarify.

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193710 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193710 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:25:50 +0000 moze Thank you emmanuel, I am going to try to put on my small brain and to understand! (I hope)

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193711 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193711 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:48:36 +0000 seejayjames use the #1 at the beginning of the table name, and use no spaces. you had “table ifo #1″ which won’t work for these two reasons. for the #1 to work (in the context of things like send and receive as well) it must be at the beginning of the symbol. If you have a space in the table argument, it won’t be part of the name—it would treat it as another argument. So change to “table #1ifo” or whatever you want to call it.

But there’s more to it, as I discovered… I made a main patch with “table #1ifo”, then made another patch with two bpatchers, so one with argument 1 and one with argument 2. Didn’t work because the main table in the master patch was still open. Closed that one, still didn’t work… but saved and closed the bpatch-holding patch, re-opened, then voila—the tables were correctly instantiated this time, named “1ifo” and “2ifo”, with uniquely-controllable contents.

So… the main thing is to close the patches you’re working with before you test with different tables. If they get created while the master one is still open, they’ll always reflect that one, regardless of the arguments you give, so it seems…probably the case for coll and other objects too, not sure…

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193712 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193712 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:30:37 +0000 Roman Thilenius named colls behave properly with #0_ in load, the load order is not a problem
from what i can tell. with table it is a bit confusing.

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193713 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193713 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:42:40 +0000 moze Thank you for all these advices, I can now separate the contents of tables, this forum is really indispensable for me!
My last discovery: tables aren’t saved with the patch, in the reopening, the data disappeared (I filled well “save data with patcher” in the inspector)

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193714 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193714 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:05:20 +0000 mudang When you want to save the table contents with the parent patcher you need to load the abstraction into a [bpatcher] and check “Embed patcher in parent”.

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193715 <![CDATA[Re: use #0 in an abstraction for tables]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/use-0-in-an-abstraction-for-tables/#post-193715 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:05:46 +0000 moze That’s it, everything works marvelously!!!
I thank the ” guru forum “,
thanks to all
Michel

]]>