Kasper

i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object

I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]

but i thought i also could send its value with a message box, something like

[; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....

can't a message box send a message to anything else than "receive" 

??? it seems to me as a very "ircam-esque" way to send messages to 

(yes, and most probably i should also be able to do it with 

pattr-family objects - will ahve a look at it just now)

can't a message box send a message to anything else than "receive" 
??? it  seems to me as a very "ircam-esque" way to send messages to 
named objects....

(yes, and most probably i  should also be able to do it with 
pattr-family objects - will ahve a look at it just now)

kasper
-- 
  Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer
http://www.sleazeArt.com

access-a-named-object

Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 08:39

----------------------------------------------------

> i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object

> I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]

> but i thought i also could send its value with a message box, something like

> [; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....

hehe yes, the inlets of the object do not know that the

you will also find that you did not specify to which inlet 

of "foo" you would like to send it anyway; because you cant

whats wrong with scripting to [thispatcher]? 

for the price of one connection you get patcher-independant

funcitons. oh yeah i know ... useless for named objects. :)

the use of [universal] is fun where it applies, but with

names such things do not work, which i why i dont use named

named objects would be more fun if objects could

have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.

thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.

Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 08:39
----------------------------------------------------
> hi
>
> i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object
>
> I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]
>
> but i thought i also could send its value with a message box, something like
>
> [; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....
>

hehe yes, the inlets of the object do not know that the
objects is called "foo".

you will also find that you did not specify to which inlet 
of "foo" you would like to send it anyway; because you cant
specify it by sending messages this way.

whats wrong with scripting to [thispatcher]? 
for the price of one connection you get patcher-independant
funcitons. oh yeah i know ... useless for named objects. :)

the use of [universal] is fun where it applies, but with
names such things do not work, which i why i dont use named
objects. 
named objects would be more fun if objects could
have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.
thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.

pattrforward is the simplest answer to this question, i think.

Am 27.05.2007 um 19:37 schrieb Roman Thilenius:

> Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 08:39

> ----------------------------------------------------

>> i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] 

>> I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]

>> but i thought i also could send its value with a message box, 

>> [; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....

> hehe yes, the inlets of the object do not know that the

> you will also find that you did not specify to which inlet

> of "foo" you would like to send it anyway; because you cant

> specify it by sending messages this way.

> whats wrong with scripting to [thispatcher]?

> for the price of one connection you get patcher-independant

> funcitons. oh yeah i know ... useless for named objects. :)

> the use of [universal] is fun where it applies, but with

> names such things do not work, which i why i dont use named

> named objects would be more fun if objects could

> have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.

> thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.

>
> Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 08:39
> ----------------------------------------------------
>> hi
>>
>> i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive]  
>> object
>>
>> I can do it by [script send foo $1] send to [thispatcher]
>>
>> but i thought i also could send its value with a message box,  
>> something like
>>
>> [; foo 45] - but then max says foo:no such object....
>>
>
>
> hehe yes, the inlets of the object do not know that the
> objects is called "foo".
>
>
> when you look at the message you tried
>
> "; foo 45"
>
> you will also find that you did not specify to which inlet
> of "foo" you would like to send it anyway; because you cant
> specify it by sending messages this way.
>
>
> whats wrong with scripting to [thispatcher]?
> for the price of one connection you get patcher-independant
> funcitons. oh yeah i know ... useless for named objects. :)
>
>
> the use of [universal] is fun where it applies, but with
> names such things do not work, which i why i dont use named
> objects.
> named objects would be more fun if objects could
> have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.
> thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.
>
>
> -110
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://vst-mac.info/


I have solutions for that, the only restriction is that you have to 

follow a naming convention like name them foo[1], foo[2] (which happens 

actually automatically while duplicating), then uzi the value to all of 

Without names and pattr I'd be lost... (I can't imagine having patched 

before it arrived, each and every old patch I look at seems ugly without 

Oh--, I forgot only the iPhone post should have been taken seriously...

Roman Thilenius schrieb:
> named objects would be more fun if objects could
> have the same name so that you can freely groups of objects.
> thats probably too much asked from aprogramming enviroment.

I have solutions for that, the only restriction is that you have to 
follow a naming convention like name them foo[1], foo[2] (which happens 
actually automatically while duplicating), then uzi the value to all of 
them with pattrforward...

Without names and pattr I'd be lost... (I can't imagine having patched 
before it arrived, each and every old patch I look at seems ugly without 
names... ;-)

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


>>i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object

pvar - i didi not know!! wow great, does all i need

pattrforward seems a good solution as well

>>
>>
>>i want to access a numbox, named "foo" without using a [receive] object
>
>Doesn't [pvar] do the job for you ?
>If not, try [pattrforward]
>
pvar - i didi not know!! wow great, does all i need

access a named object?