Abstraction detection using #1
Mar 23 2011 | 5:51 pm
I am using instance name to save file at load and close (no savebang)
so I use #1 to generate filename
But I'd like for the abstraction itself (original) to avoid having
#1 in the name and replace it with "default" for example
how to test #1 ?
- Mar 23 2011 | 6:16 pmnot sure if i understood your question, but if you don't give a name/argument which should be/replace #1, max sends/generate 0 instead of #1 what I do is using a [sel 0] which bangs to a "default" value/name etcagain, not sure if i understood your question. Hope it helpskasper
- Mar 23 2011 | 6:23 pmThe patcherargs object will give you a default argument if none is specified.
- Mar 23 2011 | 7:55 pmwant to change the behavior of the original file where #1 is not replace by anything
- Mar 24 2011 | 8:09 ambut it is; it will be replaced by 0
- Mar 24 2011 | 11:23 pmit is not replaced by 0Ok I made the problem even simplerif you include the 3 blocks here in a patch and load it the last one is set to #1 i'd like to get "default" there
- Mar 25 2011 | 1:45 amIs this what you want to do?
- Mar 25 2011 | 2:27 amNo but thanksI think you meant to use sel not split (below a corrected one)I want the default message to be trig not for an abstraction used with no name in a patch : yes #1 is replaced by 0 in this case but when you open the original patch where it is
- Mar 25 2011 | 2:56 amThis one will replace the #1 with default when the patch is not an abstraction, but use the first arg if there is one assigned. It will output a zero if no arg is defined.
- Mar 25 2011 | 10:42 amYES, I can move on now, THANKSin case somebody else need it I made it faster (I'm a programmer, got to optimize) it deal also with the no argument caseMaa
- Mar 25 2011 | 11:52 amYou found a solution, but with patcherargs it all becomes simpler.
- Mar 25 2011 | 1:45 pmyep but so difficult to understand (and test) when your not a max addict for months and have only a so clear patcherargs help/reference could you explain / comment please
- Mar 25 2011 | 3:19 pm> could you explain / comment pleaseSure. I forgot that I found the patcherargs object a little intimidating myself when I got to know it.
- Mar 25 2011 | 9:45 pmThanks I got it now
