edit feature?


    Apr 28 2006 | 6:31 am
    Just wondering... I've been doing some rash, speed programming lately, and have gotten myself into a bit of "spaghetti" (I'm not the only one, so don't even start the debate), and it made me think of a handy feature: when in edit mode, an option to select/highlight all the cable(s) connected to the selected object(s). Good, yes?
    It would also be really nice, sometimes, to be able to toggle the selection...
    J.

    • Apr 28 2006 | 7:58 am
      Not bad.
      Option-drag is also pretty useful in the contexts where you would
      want "select all connected patch cords". And we don't need to wish
      for it!
      -- P
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ -------------
      Peter Castine +---> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
      Heavy-Duty Mathematics for Everyday Use
      iCE: Sequencing, Recording &
      Interface Building for |home | chez nous|
      Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|
    • Apr 28 2006 | 8:55 am
      True. But sometimes it's a little cumbersome, due to the "lasso" nature of the drag-select style (x,y box for selection area). I think the things that really take their toll on Max users are those repeated actions which require anything above what you could think of as "%30 to %50 attention"... that is, little things that admittedly don't take much effort each time, but must be repeated enough times to become tiring during the course of a day.
      But I wonder if this could be done in the wonderful "Toolbox"? I don't know whether JS can recognize/select cables...(??)
      J.
    • Apr 28 2006 | 9:58 am
      On 28 avr. 06, at 10:55, jbmaxwell wrote:
      > But I wonder if this could be done in the wonderful "Toolbox"? I
      > don't know whether JS can recognize/select cables...(??)
      sadly not. at least for now.
      ej
    • Apr 28 2006 | 10:52 am
      I'll say it again; an option to hide -all- connections
      on lock, or even 'hide all connections and object
      boxes', or even 'hide all except gui', wouldn't go
      amiss.
      OK, so the latter would cause some enthusiastic
      debate on what is and isn't gui, but apart from for
      teaching and sharing purposes (when you can usually
      just unlock a patch anyway), how often do you actually
      want to see patch chords and object boxes in a locked
      patch ?
      I can't understand why being hidden is not the
      default state for connections, or at least an optional
      default ?
      Perhaps there are historical reasons, but some time
      around the beginning of Max 4, when it became so much
      easier to create an attractive gui with Max, I began
      to wonder why anyone would want to use patches (ie. in
      their runtime state) with all the guts showing.
      My 2 p,
      cheers
      Roger
      PS. I am aware, as was said last time this came up,
      that you can hide all patch chords by 'select all' >
      'hide on lock' > 'hide connections' > 'show on lock'
      but that's still four steps which could be reduced to
      one. I know what you're going to say now....
      'QuickKeys'. OK, I'll shut up now.
    • Apr 28 2006 | 2:04 pm
      jbmaxwell wrote:
      > It would also be really nice, sometimes, to be able to toggle the
      > selection...
      Not as handy as a keystroke, but if you hold the shift key and then drag
      select the whole patch you get it...
      Stefan
      --
      [][] [][][] [][] [][][]
      [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
      Stefan Tiedje
      Klanggestalter
      Electronic Composition
      &
      Improvisation
      /~~~~~
      \ /|() ()|
      ))))) )| | |( \
      /// _/)/ )))))
      ___/ ///
      -------------------------x----
      --_____-----------|-----------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()----
      -- _|_)----|-----()-----------
      ----------()------------x-----
      14, Av. Pr. Franklin Roosevelt,
      94320 Thiais, France
      Phone at CCMIX +33-1-57 42 91 09
    • Apr 28 2006 | 2:15 pm
      jbmaxwell wrote:
      > when in edit mode, an option to select/highlight all the cable(s)
      > connected to the selected object(s). Good, yes?
      To add another thought I had recently: it would be nice if the cable I
      just connected would be selected already. Then I'd only need to hit
      cmd-y to have it nicely alligned, or choose a color and all the other
      nice options - one go...
      Stefan
      --
      [][] [][][] [][] [][][]
      [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
      Stefan Tiedje
      Klanggestalter
      Electronic Composition
      &
      Improvisation
      /~~~~~
      \ /|() ()|
      ))))) )| | |( \
      /// _/)/ )))))
      ___/ ///
      -------------------------x----
      --_____-----------|-----------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()----
      -- _|_)----|-----()-----------
      ----------()------------x-----
      14, Av. Pr. Franklin Roosevelt,
      94320 Thiais, France
      Phone at CCMIX +33-1-57 42 91 09
    • Apr 28 2006 | 2:28 pm
      oooh, yes! Very good point.
    • Apr 28 2006 | 2:39 pm
      > Not as handy as a keystroke, but if you hold the shift key and then drag
      > select the whole patch you get it...
      Yeah, that can work as a kind of "toggle selection", but again, it's a little picky sometimes.
      I hope I don't get into too much trouble for starting yet another wish list! But I do feel there must be some sort of big-ish update lurking... (if not a plain _big_ one!)
      J.
    • Apr 28 2006 | 2:52 pm
      Quote: roger.carruthers wrote on Fri, 28 April 2006 04:52
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > I'll say it again; an option to hide -all- connections
      > on lock, or even 'hide all connections and object
      > boxes', or even 'hide all except gui', wouldn't go
      > amiss.
      > OK, so the latter would cause some enthusiastic
      > debate on what is and isn't gui, but apart from for
      > teaching and sharing purposes (when you can usually
      > just unlock a patch anyway), how often do you actually
      > want to see patch chords and object boxes in a locked
      > patch ?
      well, he said why. because of "spaghetti".
      my recommendation: try to avoid spaghetti code.
      the only things i miss in this context is a keyboard
      command for show/hide connections, as i need it frequently.
    • Apr 28 2006 | 3:08 pm
      > well, he said why. because of "spaghetti".
      >
      > my recommendation: try to avoid spaghetti code.
      >
      Well, first of all, it wasn't to avoid spaghetti. And it wasn't necessarily even in the case of spaghetti. It would help in spaghetti, yes. But it would also help in general, since even well-placed cabling (which I generally waste lots of time doing) can still become complex to read, since the cables generally cross at some point. We've been recommended by _many_ not to use too many send/receive objects, for performance reasons, and so we're left with cables...
      And I've seen some very respectable artists/programmers wind up with spaghetti, when the patch gets big enough... Also, a really great interface upgrade could even make spaghetti manageable. Without a doubt.
      anyway, I also said:
      "so don't even start the debate"
      So don't.
      >
      > the only things i miss in this context is a keyboard
      > command for show/hide connections, as i need it frequently.
      If you're running Tiger, you can make a key command for anything that has a menu item... Look in "System Preferences > Keyboard & Mouse > Keyboard Shortcuts". I made a nice little pair of shortcuts for En/De-encapsulate as well, which are pretty handy!
      Oh, and if you're running Windows?... Well, don't. ;-)
      (thought I'd add another platform war to the spaghetti...)
      J.
    • Apr 28 2006 | 4:12 pm
      On 28-Apr-2006, at 16:15, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
      > Then I'd only need to hit cmd-y to have it nicely alligned
      Talking about alignment, I have often wanted to align an object to
      the 2nd, 3rd, or Nth (n != leftmost) inlet/outlet of another object.
      I've probably lost one dioptrine of eyesight in squinting at the
      screen for this purpose.
      Is this something the Toolbox supports?
      In any case, it would be very helpful to have more flexible alignment
      options.
      On 28-Apr-2006, at 12:52, ROGER CARRUTHERS wrote:
      > apart from for
      > teaching and sharing purposes (when you can usually
      > just unlock a patch anyway), how often do you actually
      > want to see patch chords and object boxes in a locked
      > patch ?
      I would say about 80-90% of my patch cords are visible because I want
      them that way.
      Arguably, a lot of my work is somehow "sharing" (.help files,
      examples, etc.). A lot isn't (compositional work), and even there I
      want logic paths to be visible so that the user (who may be me) can
      *see* why hitting a toggle turns a gate on. Or whatever. Beats
      writing two comment boxes plus a paragraph of documentation. When I
      want stuff invisible, I make the whole rutabaga invisible
      (encapsulate and make the subpatch invisible).
      People's mileage will vary on this. Don't think your way is the only
      way.
      I'd have no problem with a "Hide-on-Lock Patch Cords by Default" item
      in the Options menu. Although if we get many more options, it might
      be time to pack the whole lot into an "Options Inspector".
      Some good ideas in this thread. Hope someone in the office is reading.
      -- P.
      PS:
      On 28-Apr-2006, at 17:08, jbmaxwell wrote:
      > And I've seen some very respectable artists/programmers wind up
      > with spaghetti, when the patch gets big enough...
      Ever see Risset's patches for "Huit Esquisses"? That's about as
      respectable as spaghetti gets. And, boy, he didn't skimp on the
      Parmesan, either!-)
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ -------------
      Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
      iCE: Sequencing, Recording & |home | chez nous|
      Interface Building for |bei uns | i nostri|
      Max/MSP Extremely cool http://www.castine.de
    • Apr 28 2006 | 5:57 pm
      I'd just like to butt in here and underline my usual sentiment. Many
      times, it's better to request a more robust framework than
      additional features. Max conservatism.
      js connection object.
      have the existing connection method return a connection object.
      this would also solve the problem of being able to tell what is
      connected to what in js as well.
    • Apr 30 2006 | 2:38 pm
      jbmaxwell wrote:
      > We've been recommended by _many_ not to use too many
      > send/receive objects, for permance reasons, and so we're left with
      > cables...
      This would be a wrong advice, cables and send/receive pairs are exactly
      the same (not only performance wise), works even with audio...
      Stefan
      --
      [][] [][][] [][] [][][]
      [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
      Stefan Tiedje
      Klanggestalter
      Electronic Composition
      &
      Improvisation
      /~~~~~
      \ /|() ()|
      ))))) )| | |( \
      /// _/)/ )))))
      ___/ ///
      -------------------------x----
      --_____-----------|-----------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()----
      -- _|_)----|-----()-----------
      ----------()------------x-----
      14, Av. Pr. Franklin Roosevelt,
      94320 Thiais, France
      Phone at CCMIX +33-1-57 42 91 09
    • Apr 30 2006 | 2:39 pm
      Roman Thilenius wrote:
      > the only things i miss in this context is a keyboard
      > command for show/hide connections, as i need it frequently.
      I am sure Emmanuel Jourdan could enhance his past-replace hack for this
      command. I'd suggest alt-cmd-c....
      Stefan
      --
      [][] [][][] [][] [][][]
      [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
      Stefan Tiedje
      Klanggestalter
      Electronic Composition
      &
      Improvisation
      /~~~~~
      \ /|() ()|
      ))))) )| | |( \
      /// _/)/ )))))
      ___/ ///
      -------------------------x----
      --_____-----------|-----------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()----
      -- _|_)----|-----()-----------
      ----------()------------x-----
      14, Av. Pr. Franklin Roosevelt,
      94320 Thiais, France
      Phone at CCMIX +33-1-57 42 91 09
    • Apr 30 2006 | 2:59 pm
      On 30 avr. 06, at 16:39, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
      > Roman Thilenius wrote:
      >> the only things i miss in this context is a keyboard
      >> command for show/hide connections, as i need it frequently.
      >
      > I am sure Emmanuel Jourdan could enhance his past-replace hack for
      > this command. I'd suggest alt-cmd-c...
      Request registred. Which keyboard shortcut would you like?
      Best,
      ej
    • Apr 30 2006 | 4:09 pm
      Quote: jbmaxwell@btinternet.com wrote on Fri, 28 April 2006
      >
      > But it would also help in general, since even
      > well-placed > cabling (which I generally waste
      > lots of time doing) can still > become complex to read,
      that is a matter of viewpoint. it is your problem if
      you only deal with connections to make patches.
      i for example only make patches because i enjoy
      arranging my spaghetti for hours into bauhaus
      artwork so much.
      since the cables generally cross at some point. We've been recommended by _many_ not to use too many send/receive objects, for performance reasons, and so we're left with cables...
      > And I've seen some very respectable artists/programmers wind up with spaghetti, when the patch gets big enough... Also, a really great interface upgrade could even make spaghetti manageable. Without a doubt.
      yeah that is how to become a real noodle specialist:
      hate and avoid sends, so that you _have to learn how
      to organize pasta.
      most people laugh about my pink and green connections,
      because they do not understand it is for more than for
      the fancy look.
      also, one can always move objects to the side to
      easily change or select all connections going from
      and to it, isnt it.
      > > the only things i miss in this context is a keyboard
      > > command for show/hide connections, as i need it frequently.
      >
      > If you're running Tiger, you can make a key command for anything that has a menu item...
      i am doing this is most of my apps since system 7,
      but that is still not the same thing than having a
      default command in Max.
      there is _two way of switching between locked/unlocked
      using the mouse in the patcher window _plus a default
      key command, but _no other way for the connections than
      using the main menu. by default, that is.
      maybe that is because we pasta fans are the minority here?
      -110 (always open for a debate noone has asked for)
    • Apr 30 2006 | 6:06 pm
      On 30 avr. 06, at 18:09, Roman Thilenius wrote:
      >> Also, a really great interface upgrade could even make spaghetti
      >> manageable.
      I'm sure you meant "mangeable"?
      Roby
    • Apr 30 2006 | 8:29 pm
    • May 03 2006 | 2:32 pm
      Quote: Roby Steinmetzer wrote on Sun, 30 April 2006 12:06
      ----------------------------------------------------
      >
      > On 30 avr. 06, at 18:09, Roman Thilenius wrote:
      > >> Also, a really great interface upgrade could even make spaghetti
      > >> manageable.
      >
      > I'm sure you meant "mangeable"?
      >
      > Roby
      i did not write that. :P
      -...
    • May 03 2006 | 4:23 pm
      On 3 mai 06, at 16:32, Roman Thilenius wrote:
      >
      > Quote: Roby Steinmetzer wrote on Sun, 30 April 2006 12:06
      > ----------------------------------------------------
      >>
      >> On 30 avr. 06, at 18:09, Roman Thilenius wrote:
      >>>> Also, a really great interface upgrade could even make spaghetti
      >>>> manageable.
      >>
      >> I'm sure you meant "mangeable"?
      >>
      >> Roby
      >
      >
      > i did not write that. :P
      Sorry Roman, my fault, it was jbmaxwell.
      I'll pay you a spaghetti if you should come to lu.
      Roby
    • Jun 02 2006 | 7:16 pm
      jbmaxwell wrote:
      > We've been recommended by _many_ not to use too many
      > send/receive objects, for permance reasons, and so we're left with
      > cables...
      This would be a wrong advice, cables and send/receive pairs are exactly
      the same (not only performance wise), works even with audio...
      Stefan
      Is this true ?? First it turns out that there is in fact no Santa Claus, and now I find out that I went through all my live patches stripping them of send~ and receive~ FOR NOTHING ???
      Could we have a ruling on this please ?
    • Jun 02 2006 | 8:17 pm
      >Talking about alignment, I have often wanted to align an object to
      >the 2nd, 3rd, or Nth (n != leftmost) inlet/outlet of another >object.
      >Is this something the Toolbox supports?
      Not sure exactely what you mean, but did you try holding the x or y key while objects are selected and moving the mouse ? (with the toolbox loaded)
    • Jun 02 2006 | 8:23 pm
      On Jun 2, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Stuart Grimshaw wrote:
      > This would be a wrong advice, cables and send/receive pairs are
      > exactly
      > the same (not only performance wise), works even with audio...
      But not with feedback. send~/receive~ is necessary. You are correct
      that send/receive work without performance problems, however. As has
      been mentioned on the list several times before, it is send~/receive~
      which incur some cost. Though they may or may not introduce
      noticeable performance penalty for any particular application.
      -Joshua
    • Jun 02 2006 | 9:28 pm
      Hey, I didn't write that ! It was Stefan, Sir, he dunnit.
    • Jun 02 2006 | 10:06 pm
      Quote: grimshaw@grimshaw.de wrote on Fri, 02 June 2006 15:28
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > Hey, I didn't write that ! It was Stefan, Sir, he dunnit.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      dude, [send] and [send~] are two different objects.
      -110 :)
    • Jun 02 2006 | 10:15 pm
      If you knew what a pain in the rear it is to type a tilde on a German keyboard, you'd never accuse anybody of doing so when it's not completely necessary :-)))
    • Jun 03 2006 | 4:04 am
      Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Mon, 01 May 2006 02:38
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > This would be a wrong advice, cables and send/receive pairs
      > are exactly the same (not only performance wise)
      In practice, however, using a send/receive pair to get a message to a destination necessitates 2 cables (as opposed to 1 cable if cabled direct) and this does impose a performance penalty:
    • Jun 03 2006 | 2:23 pm
      On 3-Jun-2006, at 0:15, Stuart Grimshaw wrote:
      > If you knew what a pain in the rear it is to type a tilde on a
      > German keyboard, you'd never accuse anybody of doing so when it's
      > not completely necessary :-)))
      Option-n + blank is not that hard.
      The clever guys and gals on the block have all gone into
      International Preferences and selected both their native language and
      some English keyboard layout, thereby adding the Keyboard menu to the
      menu bar. Once done, it's dead easy to switch between German (for
      writing letters to Tante Emma) and US (for writing patches to Onkel
      Max).
      -- Peter
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ -------------
      Peter Castine +---> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
      Heavy-Duty Mathematics for Everyday Use
      iCE: Sequencing, Recording &
      Interface Building for |home | chez nous|
      Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|
    • Jun 05 2006 | 8:49 pm
      Peter Castine wrote:
      > The clever guys and gals on the block have all gone into International
      > Preferences and selected both their native language and some English
      > keyboard layout, thereby adding the Keyboard menu to the menu bar. Once
      > done, it's dead easy to switch between German (for writing letters to
      > Tante Emma) and US (for writing patches to Onkel Max).
      but only if you know it blind...
      I have a wonderful international keyboard now, never want to go back,
      umlauts are less of a problem than the layout of widly used characters
      like []|...
      The worst are french keyboards on a portable, requires a shift to type
      numbers - no idea who invented that, its a real pain even in french.
      Stefan
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Jun 05 2006 | 9:08 pm
      If I do it like in the patch below, I get varying results, but roughly
      the same...
      maybe Joshua has an explanation? I don't know why John's test would need
      a delay to show a valuable result...(with deferlow I'd expect the same
      but get tons of error messages with the second example, might be a hint
      for a bug?)
      --
      Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
      --_____-----------|--------------
      --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
      -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
      ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Jun 07 2006 | 1:51 pm
      Hi,
      -> Am I right to assume that in/outlets of a bpatcher are treated as
      send/receive pairs inside max ?
      cheers,
      m