chapelier fou

In order to stop generating "undos" for some actions, I had the idea to dynamically change the object pointed by one single live.remote~.

This could be nice especially in the case of a control surface controlling stuff without creating undos, when you don't necessarily know in advance the number of tracks/devices you want to control.

Attached is an example of one live.remote~ "grabbing" the volume of two tracks, using javascript to set the id.

First question : would you say that it's stable/efficient with a larger number of targets ? (basically, is it a good idea ?)

Secondly : I don't really get what's happening with the undo history. It seems that changing the id create an undo entry. And performing undo will then effectively change the tracks' volumes. How is it so ?

remote_switch_test.amxd

remote_switch_test.js

In order to stop generating "undos" for some actions, I had the idea to dynamically change the object pointed by one single live.remote~.
This could be nice especially in the case of a control surface controlling stuff without creating undos, when you don't necessarily know in advance the number of tracks/devices you want to control. 


Attached is an example of one live.remote~ "grabbing" the volume of two tracks, using javascript to set the id. 


First question : would you say that it's stable/efficient  with a larger number of targets ? (basically, is it a good idea ?)

Secondly : I don't really get what's happening with the undo history. It seems that changing the id create an undo entry. And performing undo will then effectively change the tracks' volumes. How is it so ? 

In order to stop generating "undos" for some actions, I had the idea to dynamically change the object pointed by one single live.remote~.
Th

issues-when-setting-live-remote's-id-dynamically

Well, after some tests, I can say that this method is not effective, and there's no way to avoid multiple live.remote~.

That would be so nice to simply be able to set up a mode for [live.object] that would allow to not generate any undo history...

Well, after some tests, I can say that this method is not effective, and there's no way to avoid multiple live.remote~. 

issues when setting live.remote's id dynamically