access a named object?


    May 27 2007 | 2:39 pm
    hi
    i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object
    I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]
    but i thought i also could send its value with a message box, something like
    [; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....
    can't a message box send a message to anything else than "receive"
    ??? it seems to me as a very "ircam-esque" way to send messages to
    named objects....
    or am i wrong??
    (yes, and most probably i should also be able to do it with
    pattr-family objects - will ahve a look at it just now)
    many thanks
    kasper
    --
    Kasper T. Toeplitz
    noise, composition, bass, computer

    • May 27 2007 | 3:24 pm
    • May 27 2007 | 5:37 pm
      Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 08:39
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > hi
      >
      > i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object
      >
      > I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]
      >
      > but i thought i also could send its value with a message box, something like
      >
      > [; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....
      >
      hehe yes, the inlets of the object do not know that the
      objects is called "foo".
      when you look at the message you tried
      "; foo 45"
      you will also find that you did not specify to which inlet
      of "foo" you would like to send it anyway; because you cant
      specify it by sending messages this way.
      whats wrong with scripting to [thispatcher]?
      for the price of one connection you get patcher-independant
      funcitons. oh yeah i know ... useless for named objects. :)
      the use of [universal] is fun where it applies, but with
      names such things do not work, which i why i dont use named
      objects.
      named objects would be more fun if objects could
      have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.
      thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.
      -110
    • May 27 2007 | 6:07 pm
      pattrforward is the simplest answer to this question, i think.
      jb
      Am 27.05.2007 um 19:37 schrieb Roman Thilenius:
      >
      > Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 08:39
      > ----------------------------------------------------
      >> hi
      >>
      >> i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive]
      >> object
      >>
      >> I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]
      >>
      >> but i thought i also could send its value with a message box,
      >> something like
      >>
      >> [; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....
      >>
      >
      >
      > hehe yes, the inlets of the object do not know that the
      > objects is called "foo".
      >
      >
      > when you look at the message you tried
      >
      > "; foo 45"
      >
      > you will also find that you did not specify to which inlet
      > of "foo" you would like to send it anyway; because you cant
      > specify it by sending messages this way.
      >
      >
      > whats wrong with scripting to [thispatcher]?
      > for the price of one connection you get patcher-independant
      > funcitons. oh yeah i know ... useless for named objects. :)
      >
      >
      > the use of [universal] is fun where it applies, but with
      > names such things do not work, which i why i dont use named
      > objects.
      > named objects would be more fun if objects could
      > have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.
      > thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.
      >
      >
      > -110
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
    • May 27 2007 | 6:26 pm
    • May 28 2007 | 6:09 pm
      Roman Thilenius schrieb:
      > named objects would be more fun if objects could
      > have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.
      > thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.
      I have solutions for that, the only restriction is that you have to
      follow a naming convention like name them foo[1], foo[2] (which happens
      actually automatically while duplicating), then uzi the value to all of
      them with pattrforward...
      Without names and pattr I'd be lost... (I can't imagine having patched
      before it arrived, each and every old patch I look at seems ugly without
      names... ;-)
      Oh--, I forgot only the iPhone post should have been taken seriously...
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • May 29 2007 | 6:17 am
      >>
      >>
      >>i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object
      >
      >Doesn't [pvar] do the job for you ?
      >If not, try [pattrforward]
      >
      pvar - i didi not know!! wow great, does all i need
      pattrforward seems a good solution as well
      many thanks
      kasper
      --
      Kasper T. Toeplitz
      noise, composition, bass, computer