#1 turning into 0


    Jun 02 2008 | 5:30 pm
    Hello,
    I'm working with a colleague's very complex particle-systems patch (sorry, can't post it). He uses a lot of...I'm not sure what they're called, but they serve as variables in send/receive defs [r #2_cam] for instance.
    I've been simplifying the patch (deleting some code I don't need) and I'm finding that _sometimes_ when I save and re-open, all of the #1's and #2's turn into 0's. Even a #2 written in a comment turns into a 0.
    This is in Max 4.6.3 on a G5 running Tiger. The original patch and my modifications are saved as .mxt.
    Does anybody know why this might happen?
    -- Morgan Sutherland

    • Jun 02 2008 | 7:06 pm
      that is most likely because the abstraction containing the #1 arguments does not have an argument typed into it. Additionally, some objects, such as send & receive will not take numerical arguments with no symbolic part. cf: "Arguments: $ and #, Changeable Arguments to Objects" in the Max 4.6 Topics manual.
      M
      On Jun 2, 2008, at 13:30, Morgan Sutherland wrote:
      > Hello, > > I'm working with a colleague's very complex particle-systems patch > (sorry, can't post it). He uses a lot of...I'm not sure what they're > called, but they serve as variables in send/receive defs [r #2_cam] > for instance. > > I've been simplifying the patch (deleting some code I don't need) and > I'm finding that _sometimes_ when I save and re-open, all of the #1's > and #2's turn into 0's. Even a #2 written in a comment turns into a 0. > > This is in Max 4.6.3 on a G5 running Tiger. The original patch and my > modifications are saved as .mxt. > > Does anybody know why this might happen? > > -- > Morgan Sutherland
    • Jun 02 2008 | 11:10 pm
      You might want to read Max46Topics.pdf - the section on arguments. # is explained in there.
    • Jun 03 2008 | 1:07 am
      I'm a bit confused by the documentation because the patch I'm trying to figure out is not an abstraction. Everything is on the top level in one patcher (except for components that are one level down in subpatches).
      Also, I'm not changing anything crucial, just deleting some extraneous code and copy-pasting from one patcher to another. Why this should mess with the patch, I don't know.
      It's unlikely that you guys will be able to help if it's not a known issue as I can't share the patch. Thanks anyway. Back to banging my head against the table and waiting for an email reply from the creator.
      On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Zachary Seldess wrote: > > You might want to read Max46Topics.pdf - the section on arguments. # is explained in there. > > -- > http://www.zacharyseldess.com > >
      -- Morgan Sutherland
    • Jun 03 2008 | 1:55 am
      If it's not an abstraction, it inherits #1 arguments from the level above it (which needs to be an abstraction). Meaning that if I have a patcher [p foo #1] inside an abstraction [bar 3.14], anywhere #1 appears in foo will be replaced with 3.14. if [p foo #1] is directly in the top level patcher, it will naturally have a 0, as the top patcher can't have any arguments, as far as I know. Are you sure that the missile guidance system you're working on isn't in itself intended to be an abstraction in a higher-level patcher you don't have security clearance for ;-) ?
      M
      On Jun 2, 2008, at 21:07, Morgan Sutherland wrote:
      > I'm a bit confused by the documentation because the patch I'm trying > to figure out is not an abstraction. Everything is on the top level in > one patcher (except for components that are one level down in > subpatches). > > Also, I'm not changing anything crucial, just deleting some extraneous > code and copy-pasting from one patcher to another. Why this should > mess with the patch, I don't know. > > It's unlikely that you guys will be able to help if it's not a known > issue as I can't share the patch. Thanks anyway. Back to banging my > head against the table and waiting for an email reply from the > creator. > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Zachary Seldess > wrote: >> >> You might want to read Max46Topics.pdf - the section on arguments. >> # is explained in there. >> >> -- >> http://www.zacharyseldess.com >> >> > > > > -- > Morgan Sutherland
    • Jun 03 2008 | 10:15 am
      Morgan Sutherland schrieb: > Back to banging my head against the table and waiting for an email > reply from the creator.
      reading the #x parts of the manual and exploring the tutorials, including doing excessive experimentation will help much better during the wait than head banging... (unless you listen excessively to heavy metal music on high levels at the same time...;-)
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Jun 04 2008 | 2:05 am
      I think ultimately it's intended to be an abstraction in a higher level patch, but it works fine as a non-abstraction and I need to use it that way.
      In any event, I've discovered that it only doesn't work (meaning, it only replaces all the #2's and #1's with 0) when I open it from another patch (with "load xxxx"), which I tend to do a lot. If I open it from the Finder, it's fine.
      Thanks for your suggestions!
      On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote: > Morgan Sutherland schrieb: >> >> Back to banging my head against the table and waiting for an email >> reply from the creator. > > reading the #x parts of the manual and exploring the tutorials, > including doing excessive experimentation will help much better during the > wait than head banging... > (unless you listen excessively to heavy metal music on high levels at the > same time...;-) > > Stefan > > -- > Stefan Tiedje------------x------- > --_____-----------|-------------- > --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- > -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- > ----------()--------www.ccmix.com > >
      -- Morgan Sutherland