ludwig_sears

Oh how I wish you could add another bang or int (or l or s or whatever) to a trigger object at its LEFT end just as easily as you can at the RIGHT end. (I envision control-clicking the trigger and seeing a menu item "Insert trigger outlet..." and all your connectors politely scoot over one spot like guests on Merv Griffin's sofa.) Since MAX works right to left, I find the end of a trigger is often the most convenient place to patch in a new routine. I can either hook a second trigger off the first trigger's leftmost outlet, which is OK but sloppy, or cut&paste & rewrite the trigger and reconnect the whole set of cords, which is annoying.

Would such an addition to the way trigger objects work involve hideous amounts of low-level re-coding?

Oh how I wish you could add another bang or int (or l or s or whatever) to a trigger object at its LEFT end just as easily as you can at the RIGHT end. (I envision control-clicking the trigger and seeing a menu item "Insert trigger outlet..." and all your connectors politely scoot over one spot like guests on Merv Griffin's sofa.) Since MAX works right to left, I find the end of a trigger is often the most convenient place to patch in a new routine. I can either hook a second trigger off the first trigger's leftmost outlet, which is OK but sloppy, or cut&paste & rewrite the trigger and reconnect the whole set of cords, which is annoying. 

Would such an addition to the way trigger objects work involve hideous amounts of low-level re-coding?


on-my-v5-wish-list-adding-a-trigger

Like the idea. I guess adding two or three unused bangs in the left part of the object to begin with is a workaround, you could change them later if need be. The cascading triggers is also a good step.

It's a good question about the re-coding--I imagine it might involve some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself, but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord parameters in the file -- dunno how those connections could be automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger's outlets change due to adding more of them.

Changing a thing in a trigger is a nightmare. And to make clean patches, 

you use a lot of triggers, and you rewrite them a lot, and at a time, 

you're head is blowing, you don't remember the complex mechanism you had 

before and you stop doing max for ever, you take a plane to Siracusa 

(not in the us) and have a granita a la mandorla...

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music

> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

> Oh how I wish you could add another bang or int (or l or s or whatever) to a trigger object at its LEFT end just as easily as you can at the RIGHT end. (I envision control-clicking the trigger and seeing a menu item "Insert trigger outlet..." and all your connectors politely scoot over one spot like guests on Merv Griffin's sofa.) Since MAX works right to left, I find the end of a trigger is often the most convenient place to patch in a new routine. I can either hook a second trigger off the first trigger's leftmost outlet, which is OK but sloppy, or cut&paste & rewrite the trigger and reconnect the whole set of cords, which is annoying. 

> Would such an addition to the way trigger objects work involve hideous amounts of low-level re-coding? 

Changing a thing in a trigger is a nightmare. And to make clean patches, 
you use a lot of triggers, and you rewrite them a lot, and at a time, 
you're head is blowing, you don't remember the complex mechanism you had 
before and you stop doing max for ever, you take a plane to Siracusa 
(not in the us) and have a granita a la mandorla...

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
> >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

David Wright wrote:
> Oh how I wish you could add another bang or int (or l or s or whatever) to a trigger object at its LEFT end just as easily as you can at the RIGHT end. (I envision control-clicking the trigger and seeing a menu item "Insert trigger outlet..." and all your connectors politely scoot over one spot like guests on Merv Griffin's sofa.) Since MAX works right to left, I find the end of a trigger is often the most convenient place to patch in a new routine. I can either hook a second trigger off the first trigger's leftmost outlet, which is OK but sloppy, or cut&paste & rewrite the trigger and reconnect the whole set of cords, which is annoying. 
>
> Would such an addition to the way trigger objects work involve hideous amounts of low-level re-coding? 
>
>


> It's a good question about the re-coding--I imagine it might involve

> some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself,

> but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord

> parameters in the file -- dunno how those connections could be

> automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger's outlets change

It would require a change deep in the Max application. This request is 

not about trigger, its about how a given connection should behave when I 

change the number of inputs. For sure its not an easy task to implement...

Till now there was only one single rule: keep the connections according 

What you want: keep the connections according to their meaning. But 

In the case of trigger/route/sel/ and alike (all objects which have one 

parameter connected to one outlet) it would be helpfull if the existing 

connections stay connected to their parameters. If I add a parameter in 

the middle it would create an outlet in the middle (or reconnect 

everything according to the point of change...)

This sounds not too easy for me, but who knows, at least imaginable and 

Seejay James wrote:
> It's a good question about the re-coding--I imagine it might involve
> some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself,
> but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord
> parameters in the file -- dunno how those connections could be
> automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger's outlets change
> due to adding more of them.

It would require a change deep in the Max application. This request is 
not about trigger, its about how a given connection should behave when I 
change the number of inputs. For sure its not an easy task to implement...

Till now there was only one single rule: keep the connections according 
to their order.
What you want: keep the connections according to their meaning. But 
thats difficult I guess.
In the case of trigger/route/sel/ and alike (all objects which have one 
parameter connected to one outlet) it would be helpfull if the existing 
connections stay connected to their parameters. If I add a parameter in 
the middle it would create an outlet in the middle (or reconnect 
everything according to the point of change...)
This sounds not too easy for me, but who knows, at least imaginable and 
it would be convenient for sure...

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


perhaps someone can write a clever bit of javascript to add the

parameter and realign all of the connections appropriately?

> > It's a good question about the re-coding--I imagine it might involve

> > some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself,

> > but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord

> > parameters in the file -- dunno how those connections could be

> > automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger's outlets change

> It would require a change deep in the Max application. This request is

> not about trigger, its about how a given connection should behave when I

> change the number of inputs. For sure its not an easy task to implement...

> Till now there was only one single rule: keep the connections according

> What you want: keep the connections according to their meaning. But

> In the case of trigger/route/sel/ and alike (all objects which have one

> parameter connected to one outlet) it would be helpfull if the existing

> connections stay connected to their parameters. If I add a parameter in

> the middle it would create an outlet in the middle (or reconnect

> everything according to the point of change...)

> This sounds not too easy for me, but who knows, at least imaginable and

perhaps someone can write a clever bit of javascript to add the
parameter and realign all of the connections appropriately?

On 1/16/07, Stefan Tiedje  wrote:
> Seejay James wrote:
> > It's a good question about the re-coding--I imagine it might involve
> > some relatively simple (maybe?) changes to the trigger object itself,
> > but some possibly convoluted ones to the storage of patchcord
> > parameters in the file -- dunno how those connections could be
> > automatically rerouted if the indices of the trigger's outlets change
> > due to adding more of them.
>
> It would require a change deep in the Max application. This request is
> not about trigger, its about how a given connection should behave when I
> change the number of inputs. For sure its not an easy task to implement...
>
> Till now there was only one single rule: keep the connections according
> to their order.
> What you want: keep the connections according to their meaning. But
> thats difficult I guess.
> In the case of trigger/route/sel/ and alike (all objects which have one
> parameter connected to one outlet) it would be helpfull if the existing
> connections stay connected to their parameters. If I add a parameter in
> the middle it would create an outlet in the middle (or reconnect
> everything according to the point of change...)
> This sounds not too easy for me, but who knows, at least imaginable and
> it would be convenient for sure...
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
> --_____-----------|--------------
> --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
> -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
> ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
>
>

On my V5 wish list: Adding a trigger