Comment in Bpatcher


    May 03 2008 | 9:47 am
    Hi,
    I join A zip file with 3 patchers
    CommentBug : The main patch Untitled1 : a Max 5 abstract Untitled2 : a Max 4.6.3 abstract
    you can see how max 5 use arguments in 'bpatcher' Is it a bug ?
    thanx...
    PS : MacBook Pro - MacOS 10.5.2
    fxw@wanadoo.fr

    • May 03 2008 | 10:53 am
      On 3 mai 08, at 11:47, Francois Weber wrote:
      > Hi, > > I join A zip file with 3 patchers > > CommentBug : The main patch > Untitled1 : a Max 5 abstract > Untitled2 : a Max 4.6.3 abstract > > you can see how max 5 use arguments in 'bpatcher' > Is it a bug ?
      Actually no, it's a feature. In Max 5 the contents of the comment is not evaluated anymore. You'll have to use message box instead if you want to display it.
      ej
    • May 03 2008 | 12:06 pm
      hi ej ...
      Ok for the comment object, but what about argument like #1_FXW in 'Embed in parent' mode ?
      thanx
    • May 03 2008 | 4:32 pm
      On May 3, 2008, at 2:47 AM, Francois Weber wrote: > you can see how max 5 use arguments in 'bpatcher' > Is it a bug ?
      Apparently, it was quirk of the Max 4 parser that the #1 arguments were ever substituted at all.
      I know it's a drag to have to modify your patchers, but instead of using comments in Max 5 for things I need to be substituted like this, I've been using message boxes with the background set to transparent.
      -C
      Chris Muir cbm@well.com http://www.xfade.com
    • May 03 2008 | 10:40 pm
      On 3 mai 08, at 18:32, Chris Muir wrote:
      > I know it's a drag to have to modify your patchers, but instead of > using comments in Max 5 for things I need to be substituted like > this, I've been using message boxes with the background set to > transparent.
      Or a [loadmess set #1-toto] + [comment].
      ej
    • May 04 2008 | 12:04 am
      Ok for the comment object, I understand... but what about argument like #1_FXW in other objects with 'Embed in parent' mode ? '(look at my main patch...)
      thx
      fxw
    • May 04 2008 | 12:08 am
      On May 3, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Francois Weber wrote: > Ok for the comment object, but what about argument like #1_FXW in > 'Embed in parent' mode ?
      I missed that the first time round.
      Yeah, that looks like it might be a bug, I guess, although the rules for arguments to embedded subpatchers has always been a a bit of a mystery to me.
      -C
      Chris Muir cbm@well.com http://www.xfade.com
    • May 04 2008 | 12:45 am
      On May 3, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Chris Muir wrote: > Yeah, that looks like it might be a bug, I guess, although the rules > for arguments to embedded subpatchers has always been a a bit of a > mystery to me.
      Here I am talking to myself again.
      By "bit of a mystery" I don't mean that I don't know they work, more of a mystery of why they were designed that way in the first place, but that's lost in time, like tears in rain.
      -C
      Chris Muir cbm@well.com http://www.xfade.com
    • May 04 2008 | 2:32 am
      The more I think about this the more I think it's just Max 5 being consistent with how it treats arguments to subpatchers. You wouldn't expect arguments to be passed to a subpatcher embedded in a parent patcher, and this is sort of the same thing.
      -C
      Chris Muir cbm@well.com http://www.xfade.com