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...

edit-feature

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 

Peter Castine +---> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

Interface Building for |home | chez nous|

Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|

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!

--------------    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|
       http://www.dspaudio.com/                   http://www.castine.de

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...(??)

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...(??)

> But I wonder if this could be done in the wonderful "Toolbox"? I  
> don't know whether JS can recognize/select cables...(??)

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

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

I can't understand why being hidden is not the

default state for connections, or at least an optional

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.

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....

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.


> It would also be really nice, sometimes, to be able to toggle the

Not as handy as a keystroke, but if you hold the shift key and then drag 

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 Tiedje
         Klanggestalter
     Electronic Composition
               &
         Improvisation

            /~~~~~
     \   /|() ()|
     ))))) )|  |  |( \
     ///     _/)/ )))))
             ___/   ///

-------------------------x----
--_____-----------|-----------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()----
-- _|_)----|-----()-----------
----------()------------x-----

14, Av. Pr. Franklin Roosevelt,
94320 Thiais, France
Phone at CCMIX +33-1-57 42 91 09


> 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 

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...

> Not as handy as a keystroke, but if you hold the shift key and then drag 

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!)

> 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. 

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

> 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

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.

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 ? 

the only things i miss in this context is a keyboard
command for show/hide connections, as i need it frequently.


> 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.

> 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...)

> 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"

>
> 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. ;-)

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 

In any case, it would be very helpful to have more flexible alignment 

On 28-Apr-2006, at 12:52, ROGER CARRUTHERS wrote:

I would say about 80-90% of my patch cords are visible because I want 

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 

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.

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 

Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

iCE: Sequencing, Recording & |home | chez nous|

Interface Building for |bei uns | i nostri|

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.

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".

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

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 

have the existing connection method return a connection object.

this would also solve the problem of being able to tell what is 

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.


> We've been recommended by _many_ not to use too many

> send/receive objects, for permance reasons, and so we're left with

This would be a wrong advice, cables and send/receive pairs are exactly 

the same (not only performance wise), works even with audio...

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...

I am sure Emmanuel Jourdan could enhance his past-replace hack for this 

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....

On 30 avr. 06, at 16:39, Stefan Tiedje 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 

Request registred. Which keyboard shortcut would you like?

> 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...

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 

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 

most people laugh about my pink and green connections,

because they do not understand it is for more than for 

also, one can always move objects to the side to 

easily change or select all connections going from 

> > 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 

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)

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.

-110 (always open for a debate noone has asked for)


On 30 avr. 06, at 18:09, Roman Thilenius wrote:

>> Also, a really great interface upgrade could even make spaghetti 

On 30 avr. 06, at 18:09, Roman Thilenius wrote:
>> Also, a really great interface upgrade could even make spaghetti  
>> manageable.

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 

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

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:

edit feature?