Steven Miller

It would be very handy if there were the possibility during editing/ 

development of a patch of highlighting an object, for example an 

[outlet], and replacing it with another object, for example a [send].

2) select 'replace object with...' from the edit menu (or use 

3) specify the replacement object from an object menu

The advantage would be that, for objects that have identical inlets/ 

outlets (i.e. send & outlet or receive & inlet), the patchcords would 

not have to be re-drawn. Perhaps you could also select numerous 

objects, say a bunch of math operators, and replace them all with a 

different math operator with one command. In this case, not only 

would patchcord connections be retained but arguments would be 

Associate Professor of Contemporary Music

*opportunities for composers & sound artists*

It would be very handy if there were the possibility during editing/ 
development of a patch of highlighting an object, for example an  
[outlet], and replacing it with another object, for example a [send].

1) click on an object
2) select 'replace object with...' from the edit menu (or use  
appropriate key command)
3) specify the replacement object from an object menu

The advantage would be that, for objects that have identical inlets/ 
outlets (i.e. send & outlet or receive & inlet), the patchcords would  
not have to be re-drawn. Perhaps you could also select numerous  
objects, say a bunch of math operators, and replace them all with a  
different math operator with one command. In this case, not only  
would patchcord connections be retained but arguments would be  
preserved, as well.

Associate Professor of Contemporary Music
College of Santa Fe
Contemporary Music Program
1600 St. Michaels Drive
Santa Fe NM 87505
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill
(505) 473-6197

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SFIFEM
Atrium Sound Space
OVOS
*opportunities for composers & sound artists*

feature-idearequest

On 29 janv. 07, at 22:27, Steven Miller wrote:

> It would be very handy if there were the possibility during editing/ 

> development of a patch of highlighting an object, for example an 

> [outlet], and replacing it with another object, for example a [send].

> 2) select 'replace object with...' from the edit menu (or use 

> 3) specify the replacement object from an object menu

> The advantage would be that, for objects that have identical inlets/ 

> outlets (i.e. send & outlet or receive & inlet), the patchcords 

> would not have to be re-drawn. Perhaps you could also select 

> numerous objects, say a bunch of math operators, and replace them 

> all with a different math operator with one command. In this case, 

> not only would patchcord connections be retained but arguments 

You do know the Paste Replace command, don't you?

> Hi all,
>
> It would be very handy if there were the possibility during editing/ 
> development of a patch of highlighting an object, for example an  
> [outlet], and replacing it with another object, for example a [send].
>
> It might go something like:
>
> 1) click on an object
> 2) select 'replace object with...' from the edit menu (or use  
> appropriate key command)
> 3) specify the replacement object from an object menu
>
> The advantage would be that, for objects that have identical inlets/ 
> outlets (i.e. send & outlet or receive & inlet), the patchcords  
> would not have to be re-drawn. Perhaps you could also select  
> numerous objects, say a bunch of math operators, and replace them  
> all with a different math operator with one command. In this case,  
> not only would patchcord connections be retained but arguments  
> would be preserved, as well.

Yes, there is 'paste replace', but there are extra steps involved in 

using it - you have to first create the object you're using to 

replace the others, then copy it, then choose the object(s) to be 

replaced and then finally choosing 'paste replace'. Also, 'paste 

replace' doesn't preserve arguments where appropriate.

My suggestion cuts out the first 2 steps and includes the idea of 

On Jan 29, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Emmanuel Jourdan wrote:

> You do know the Paste Replace command, don't you?

Yes, there is 'paste replace', but there are extra steps involved in  
using it - you have to first create the object you're using to  
replace the others, then copy it, then choose the object(s) to be  
replaced and then finally choosing 'paste replace'. Also, 'paste  
replace' doesn't preserve arguments where appropriate.

My suggestion cuts out the first 2 steps and includes the idea of  
preserving arguments.

>
> You do know the Paste Replace command, don't you?
>
> ej

why wouldn't you just click it and type the new object?

That is only an option for non-UI and other objects that can be 

created by typing a name. For things such as number boxes, sliders, 

inlets, outlets, etc. you don't have that option.

For example, try pulling a horizontal slider off the palette, putting 

it in a patcher, connecting the inlets & outlets to other objects, 

then try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking 

and typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub... And 

if you want to do that with objects with names that can be typed in, 

it certainly won't preserve the arguments.

On Jan 29, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

> why wouldn't you just click it and type the new object?

That is only an option for non-UI and other objects that can be  
created by typing a name. For things such as number boxes, sliders,  
inlets, outlets, etc. you don't have that option.

For example, try pulling a horizontal slider off the palette, putting  
it in a patcher, connecting the inlets & outlets to other objects,  
then try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking  
and typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub... And  
if you want to do that with objects with names that can be typed in,  
it certainly won't preserve the arguments.

>
> why wouldn't you just click it and type the new object?
>
----
Steven M. Miller

http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill
SFIFEM
Atrium Sound Space
OVOS

On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Steven Miller wrote:

> try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking and 

> typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub...

Actually, you CAN just type in the object name into a new object box.

It is case sensitive, and it isn't always the name of the object that 

appears in the Assistance - instead, it is the name of the object in 

the help file (i.e. the float number box is "flonum")

>  try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking and  
> typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub...

It is case sensitive, and it isn't always the name of the object that  
appears in the Assistance - instead, it is the name of the object in  
the help file (i.e. the float number box is "flonum")


In a *new* one, yes, but not when trying to change or replace one 

already instantiated - that's what I'm talking about: changing/ 

replacing objects already in a patch. Try placing a new [flonum] on 

screen, then try typing 'number' into this object to change it to a 

[number]. Voila! No can do - no way to change it after the fact by 

The original idea is actually pretty simple...the ability to 

highlight one or more objects and choose a 'replace object with...' 

item from the 'edit' menu. For appropriate objects (i.e. identical 

set of inlets/outlets) the patchcords would stay connected and/or 

(when arguments still 'make sense' i.e. changing a [-] to a [+]) the 

arguments inside the objects would be retained.

There currently isn't this simple functionality for editing patches 

which retains both patchcords and arguments for a multiple-object 

On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Arne Eigenfeldt wrote:

> On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Steven Miller wrote:

>> try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking and 

>> typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub...

> Actually, you CAN just type in the object name into a new object box.

> It is case sensitive, and it isn't always the name of the object 

> that appears in the Assistance - instead, it is the name of the 

> object in the help file (i.e. the float number box is "flonum")

In a *new* one, yes, but not when trying to change or replace one  
already instantiated - that's what I'm talking about: changing/ 
replacing objects already in a patch. Try placing a new [flonum] on  
screen, then try typing 'number' into this object to change it to a  
[number]. Voila! No can do - no way to change it after the fact by  
typing into it.

The original idea is actually pretty simple...the ability to  
highlight one or more objects and choose a 'replace object with...'  
item from the 'edit' menu. For appropriate objects (i.e. identical  
set of inlets/outlets) the patchcords would stay connected and/or  
(when arguments still 'make sense' i.e. changing a [-] to a [+]) the  
arguments inside the objects would be retained.

There currently isn't this simple functionality for editing patches  
which retains both patchcords and arguments for a multiple-object  
change/replace.

>
> On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Steven Miller wrote:
>
>>  try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking and  
>> typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub...
>
> Actually, you CAN just type in the object name into a new object box.
>
> It is case sensitive, and it isn't always the name of the object  
> that appears in the Assistance - instead, it is the name of the  
> object in the help file (i.e. the float number box is "flonum")

I might be missing something, but this seems to do what you 

want...create a new object of the type you want, copy it, select the 

offending objects, and click Paste Replace.

Go set a key command for it in the OS X system preferences. Its a 

> In a *new* one, yes, but not when trying to change or replace one 

> already instantiated - that's what I'm talking about: changing/replacing 

> objects already in a patch. Try placing a new [flonum] on screen, then 

> try typing 'number' into this object to change it to a [number]. Voila! 

> No can do - no way to change it after the fact by typing into it.

> The original idea is actually pretty simple...the ability to highlight 

> one or more objects and choose a 'replace object with...' item from the 

> 'edit' menu. For appropriate objects (i.e. identical set of 

> inlets/outlets) the patchcords would stay connected and/or (when 

> arguments still 'make sense' i.e. changing a [-] to a [+]) the arguments 

> There currently isn't this simple functionality for editing patches 

> which retains both patchcords and arguments for a multiple-object 

> On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Arne Eigenfeldt wrote:

>> On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Steven Miller wrote:

>>> try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking and 

>>> typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub...

>> Actually, you CAN just type in the object name into a new object box.

>> It is case sensitive, and it isn't always the name of the object that 

>> appears in the Assistance - instead, it is the name of the object in 

>> the help file (i.e. the float number box is "flonum")

I might be missing something, but this seems to do what you 
want...create a new object of the type you want, copy it, select the 
offending objects, and click Paste Replace.

Go set a key command for it in the OS X system preferences.  Its a 
lifesaver.

Steven Miller wrote:
> In a *new* one, yes, but not when trying to change or replace one 
> already instantiated - that's what I'm talking about: changing/replacing 
> objects already in a patch. Try placing a new [flonum] on screen, then 
> try typing 'number' into this object to change it to a [number]. Voila! 
> No can do - no way to change it after the fact by typing into it.
>
> Back to my original point...
>
> The original idea is actually pretty simple...the ability to highlight 
> one or more objects and choose a 'replace object with...' item from the 
> 'edit' menu. For appropriate objects (i.e. identical set of 
> inlets/outlets) the patchcords would stay connected and/or (when 
> arguments still 'make sense' i.e. changing a [-] to a [+]) the arguments 
> inside the objects would be retained.
>
> There currently isn't this simple functionality for editing patches 
> which retains both patchcords and arguments for a multiple-object 
> change/replace.
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Arne Eigenfeldt wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Steven Miller wrote:
>>
>>>  try to replace the slider with a number box by 'just clicking and 
>>> typing the new object.' Not possible, eh? There's the rub...
>>
>> Actually, you CAN just type in the object name into a new object box.
>>
>> It is case sensitive, and it isn't always the name of the object that 
>> appears in the Assistance - instead, it is the name of the object in 
>> the help file (i.e. the float number box is "flonum")
>
> ----
> Steven M. Miller
>
> http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill
> SFIFEM
> Atrium Sound Space
> OVOS
>
>
>

-- 
barry threw
composition : sound : programming
http://www.barrythrew.com
bthrew(at)gmail(dot)com
857-544-3967

(if you would see the stars clearly,
look hard at the surrounding darkness)
		-Ooka Makoto


On 30 janv. 07, at 10:54, Peter Castine wrote:

> Paste Replace is enormously powerful. All it needs is a convenient 

install the ejies ;-) On MacOS only through.

> Paste Replace is enormously powerful. All it needs is a convenient  
> keyboard shortcut.

I've already compared my request with the functionality of 'paste 

replace' earlier in the thread. Please have a look.

On Jan 29, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Barry Threw wrote:

> I might be missing something, but this seems to do what you 

> want...create a new object of the type you want, copy it, select 

> the offending objects, and click Paste Replace.

> Go set a key command for it in the OS X system preferences. Its a 

I've already compared my request with the functionality of 'paste  
replace' earlier in the thread. Please have a look.

> Have you used Paste Replace?
>
> I might be missing something, but this seems to do what you  
> want...create a new object of the type you want, copy it, select  
> the offending objects, and click Paste Replace.
>
> Go set a key command for it in the OS X system preferences.  Its a  
> lifesaver.
>
> b
>
>

On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:54 AM, Peter Castine wrote:

> First off: in contrast to some readers, I *have* understood the 

> difference between the above and Paste Replace.

You're absolutely right - it is. I'm not advocating getting rid of 

it. I'm advocating something else in addition or in conjunction with it.

>
> First off: in contrast to some readers, I *have* understood the  
> difference between the above and Paste Replace.
>
Thank you.

>
> Paste Replace is enormously powerful. All it needs is a convenient  
> keyboard shortcut.

You're absolutely right - it is. I'm not advocating getting rid of  
it. I'm advocating something else in addition or in conjunction with it.

> My suggestion cuts out the first 2 steps and includes the idea of 

And includes to choose from a menu afterwards,

Oldtime maxers never use the menu or palette, they write the name of the 

object, if you type over the old name that would preserve the arguments. 

(Which almost never would make sense). And UI objects don't have 

arguments and if you preserve arguments for an object which doesn't 

paste replace is as close as one can get to your suggestion...

Steven Miller wrote:
> My suggestion cuts out the first 2 steps and includes the idea of 
> preserving arguments.

Oldtime maxers never use the menu or palette, they write the name of the 
object, if you type over the old name that would preserve the arguments. 
(Which almost never would make sense). And UI objects don't have 
arguments and if you preserve arguments for an object which doesn't 
understand it (more than likely)...

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


Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 16:57

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

> and if you preserve arguments for an object which doesn't 

> paste replace is as close as one can get to your suggestion...

Sorry Stefan, I don't agree. I use paste replace a lot on subpatchers. Consider the patch below. I don't want to use poly~ and I don't want to use abstractions (I have my reasons, let's not discuss them here).

Now I change the functionality of the topmost subpatcher and I want the change reflected in the ones below. I copy the first subpatcher, select the others, choose Paste Replace. Now I have to renumber all the arguments of 9 subpatchers. This happens to me daily (not limited to 9 copies).

I would love the option to preserve arguments.

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 16:57
----------------------------------------------------
> and if you preserve arguments for an object which doesn't 
> understand it (more than likely)...
>
> paste replace is as close as one can get to your suggestion...
>
> Stefan

Sorry Stefan, I don't agree. I use paste replace a lot on subpatchers. Consider the patch below. I don't want to use poly~ and I don't want to use abstractions (I have my reasons, let's not discuss them here). 

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


On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

>> My suggestion cuts out the first 2 steps and includes the idea of 

> And includes to choose from a menu afterwards,

Yes, which is usually (though not always) going to be faster than 

creating an object by whatever method (menu or typing the name), then 

copying it, then choosing 'paste replace' from a menu anyway - 

particularly for multiple-object replacements.

> Oldtime maxers never use the menu or palette, they write the name 

> of the object, if you type over the old name that would preserve 

> the arguments. (Which almost never would make sense).

There are some serious assumptions built in to this statement.

"Oldtime max users..." - I've been using Max for over 12 years, and I 

still sometimes find myself using the object menu. I do it for the 

same reason that I like to browse in a well-stocked record shop when 

looking for new ideas rather than simply shopping for something I 

already know. Not everyone works the same as others, even 'oldtime 

maxers'. Not every feature is as useful to some as to others. This 

doesn't invalidate the usefulness some might find.

"Which almost never would make sense" - I actually find it very 

useful and it often makes total sense. For example when I want to 

explore some new idea about signal processing, I might alternately 

try adding some signal rather than subtracting it from a given 

signal, etc. Again, most useful when 'browsing' and trying new ideas 

rather than 'buying' something I've already identified.

> And UI objects don't have arguments and if you preserve arguments 

> for an object which doesn't understand it (more than likely)...

That's where my idea of 'retain arguments where appropriate' comes 

in. Clearly preserving arguments in a [+] when changing it to a [-] 

'makes sense' in terms of the argument still being an appropriate 

argument for the new object. Whether it's actually the value you 

want, who knows. As another example, changing one 'interchangeable' 

subpatch or abstraction for another while preserving arguments would 

make many things much easier/quicker. If not, the usual 'paste 

Yes, absolutely true. Hence my request for a new feature.

As an aside re: this topic in general: I'm actually kind of tickled 

feature idea/request