11OLSEN

I don't want to duplicate some global input monitoring in every instance of my external. Do you think the following is possible:

- instance 1 creates the internal (no box) mother object which does the monitoring, then instance 1 subscribes to notifications of mother object 

- instance 2, 3, 4, ... notice the mother object already exists and only subscribe to it

- now when deleting instances, the very last instance should know it's the last and then free the mother object together with itself.

What's the most elegant way to implement this? 

I don't want to duplicate some global input monitoring in every instance of my external. Do you think the following is possible:
- instance 1 creates the internal (no box) mother object which does the monitoring, then instance 1 subscribes to notifications of mother object 
- instance 2, 3, 4, ... notice the mother object already exists and only subscribe to it
- now when deleting instances, the very last instance should know it's the last and then free the mother object together with itself.

What's the most elegant way to implement this?    


I don't want to duplicate some global input monitoring in every instance of my external. Do you think the following is possible:
- instance 

one-internal-object-and-multiple-instances-of-an-external

TestObject array[] = new TestObject[10];
for(int i= 0; i <= 10; i++){
    TestObject object = new TestObject();

     object.setValue(i);
     array[i] = object;
    System.out.println(array[i].getObject());
}
I create multiple instances of "TestObject" with the same name in the loop? Usually you can't create instances with the same name
TestObject o = new TestObject(1);
TestObject o = new TestObject(2);

declare a static pointer to the singleton object initialized to NULL. also declare a static object counter int. in the objects new method test if the singleton is null, and create the object if so. also increase the object counter. in the free method decrement the counter, and if 0 destroy the singleton.

Thanks @SHANA my mother obj is internal NOBOX and my childs are the BOX instances in the patcher.

@ROB that worked straight away using two globals. Do you know when I call 

 in the mother singleton, is it blocking until all childs have completed their notify method or is it kind of a qelem mechanism?. thanks 

Thanks @SHANA  my mother obj  is internal NOBOX and my childs are the BOX instances in the patcher.
@ROB that worked straight away using two globals. Do you know when I call object_notify(obj, sym, data); in the mother singleton, is it blocking until all childs have completed their notify method or is it kind of a qelem mechanism?. thanks 


you must try this one it is javascript code

@11OLSEN  

 you must try this one it is javascript code 

I really admire the people who create code like this. I followed but felt my brain hurt.

TestObject array[] = new TestObject[10];
for(int i= 0; i <= 10; i++){
    TestObject object = new TestObject();

     object.setValue(i);
     array[i] = object;
    System.out.println(array[i].getObject());
}
 Friday Night Funkin
I create multiple instances of "TestObject" with the same name in the loop? Usually you can't create instances with the same name
TestObject o = new TestObject(1);
TestObject o = new TestObject(2);

https://uaeonlinemall.com/product/largo-cream-original-inverma/

this is a good blog thanks for posting:
 largo cream original inverma :
https://uaeonlinemall.com/product/largo-cream-original-inverma/

I read your problem several times since you make so many excellent points. I am glad to share my opinion with you.

I write is as an answer only because it is too long to fit in a comment.

if you need further information then let me know and move on my page ,

 I read your problem several times since you make so many excellent points. I am glad to share my opinion with you.

The member variable _cycle_duration is not used. You could remove it and save a couple of bytes per Output instance.

if (run_once == true) is equivalent to if ((run_once == true) == true). They are both considered bad style. Preferred style is to just write if (run_once).

On the Arduino, it is generally good practice to avoid dynamic allocation whenever possible. Of course, it is not always possible, but in this instance it is quite easy: declare STATUS and BUZZER as objects instead of pointers (as in Output STATUS;), then replace -> by a single dot (.).

if you need further information then let me know and move on my page ,Ac services in Lahore.

Beauty Innovations Marina del Rey | Effective Skincare Pro

, your premier destination for cutting-edge beauty treatments in the heart of Marina Del Rey, USA. We are dedicated to helping you achieve your skincare goals and enhancing your natural beauty through innovative techniques and personalized care.

Welcome to Beauty Innovations Marina del Rey | Effective Skincare Pro, your premier destination for cutting-edge beauty treatments in the heart of Marina Del Rey, USA. We are dedicated to helping you achieve your skincare goals and enhancing your natural beauty through innovative techniques and personalized care.

one internal object and multiple instances of an external