personal_username

Just found out the [value] object cannot be dynamically set like [receive] (using "set").

[receive] won't work for me as I might need to recall the value after it has been sent via [send].

Just found out the [value] object cannot be dynamically set like [receive] (using "set").
Is there a workaround to this?
[receive] won't work for me as I might need to recall the value after it has been sent via [send].

Hi guys, 
Just found out the [value] object cannot be dynamically set like [receive] (using "set").
Is there a workaround to this?
[receive]

dynamic-value-or-viable-alternatives

Don't use 'set'. In Max Reference, the description for 

Don't use 'set'.  In Max Reference, the description for value explains what to do:

Shares data with other value objects of the same name. If you send a message (number, list, or anything else) to one value object, it is set for all value objects with the same 'name' argument. You can get the contents out of a particular value object by sending it a bang. 

I realised dynamically setting a [value] is not really possible unless I *create a new one*.

Sorry for the delay.
I realised dynamically setting a [value] is not really possible unless I *create a new one*.
Here's the example:

As your example shows, you cannot dynamically change the name of a 

 object. You are correct, you would have to script a new 

 object (possibly after scripting the removal of the one with the wrong name, if that's relevant).

But let's consider the objective more broadly. If it what you want is to dynamically select between named values or named sets of data, the 

 object is probably not your best tool. Have you considered using the 

 object? Those are designed for just that purpose. However, if you want multiple 

 objects that can all access the same data, you would have to save the data to file in order to share it.

As your example shows, you cannot dynamically change the name of a value object.  You are correct, you would have to script a new  value object (possibly after scripting the removal of the one with the wrong name, if that's relevant).

But let's consider the objective more broadly.  If it what you want is to dynamically select between named values or named sets of data, the value object is probably not your best tool.  Have you considered using the coll object or the dict object?  Those are designed for just that purpose.   However, if you want multiple  coll objects or dict objects that can all access the same data, you would have to save the data to file in order to share it.

as i dont like [s] / [r], i use [v] in rare cases to be able to send data across patchers.

but i have never felt the need to rename them, and at least to my understanding it would be a bit strange to rename the handle of a variable.

however, scripting is slow but thread safe.

and to have a "sender" [v] or [pvar] with some 5 different names, you could create all 5 and use a gate to switch between them.

so this type of workaround would also exist.

this reminds me a bit of using dynamic arguments for route/select, which only works when there is only one argument to the object box. then the other day you think "


as i dont like [s] / [r], i use [v] in rare cases to be able to send data across patchers.

but i have never felt the need to rename them, and at least to my understanding it would be a bit strange to rename the handle of a variable.

however, scripting is slow but thread safe.

and to have a "sender" [v] or [pvar] with some 5 different names, you could create all 5 and use a gate to switch between them.

so this type of workaround would also exist.

this reminds me a bit of using dynamic arguments for route/select, which only works when there is only one argument to the object box. then the other day you think "wtf? why does it stop working?"


Even if I still think that it would be a nice touch to have [value] to be set with a message, I agree with both of you on dict/coll or dynamic routing.

I'll see what fits best my patch, again: thanks!

Thanks for your replies guys! :-)
Even if I still think that it would be a nice touch to have [value] to be set with a message, I agree with both of you on dict/coll or dynamic routing.
I'll see what fits best my patch, again: thanks! 

dynamic [value], or viable alternatives