dict stored as a field of another dict

    Mar 05 2017 | 7:25 pm
    The help files are particularly opaque when it comes to nested dictionaries. The "hierarchy" tab shows only how to use sub-dicts if you explicitly know all the values to put in a simple message. But in any real application, this data is going to be compiled from different sources. For arrays of [dict] the help file only shows retrieval, not how to intelligently get data into the structure in the first place.
    You can use [dict] in two ways: with or without field names. Without a name for each data field, you have a simple array with a top level key. Working with these is easy, but it's the same as using [coll], near as I can tell.
    With named fields you have a structured JSON hierarchy. You also have a headache, since the docs abandon you to the elements.
    So, how can I create nested dictionaries with named fields from arbitrary data? (Oh, and without Javascript.)
    The following patcher should clarify the issue. It's likely only one or two objects away from working.

    • Mar 05 2017 | 8:16 pm
      Here is a suboptimal solution that ignores [dict.pack]. Instead, each element of the sub-dict is created individually, using a rather brute force technique. This may be difficult to generalise, since [join] / [unjoin] need an explicit size.
      I would prefer to be able to create one dictionary and then assign it to the other. That must be more elegant.
    • Mar 05 2017 | 10:02 pm
      This is strange. There is no way to set the name of a [dict] programmatically? It must be specified explicitly in the patch.
      Surely a major omission.
    • Mar 06 2017 | 1:20 am
      Hmmm... undocumented feature.
      If I have [dict fruit] and [dict].
      A message (name fruit) sent to the second [dict] sets the dictionary name. Sort of. It responds to messages as though it's [dict fruit].
      But when I double-click on [dict] it's empty.
      How very odd.
      Yes, there's an echo in here!
    • Mar 06 2017 | 2:39 am
      I extended the "brute force method", as I called it above, and have my solution. Now that I can properly address an arbitrary named [dict], I was able to put the whole mess out of sight in an abstraction. If there was any interest, I might do a tutorial.
    • Mar 07 2017 | 6:53 pm
      I was struggling with the exact same issue a few weeks ago. This is the best resource I've found. http://x37v.com/x37v/max/dict-object/
      But I think I ended up doing all the dict logic in javascript. :(
    • Aug 03 2018 | 7:59 am
      Robin Parmar - I would definetly like to see this tutorial or some kind of simple patch. Thanks