flim

I want to be able to have a thumb on when data is to be passed on & when not. I know [gate]'s a basic & good option.

but [gate] only has 1 data inlet (messages to be gated). for several out- AND inlets I could easily use [router]. but this I'd like to avoid because in my patch it's essential to have influence on incoming data with only a [toggle] (respectively 0 = "data can't pass", 1 = "data can pass").

so I'm trying to pass on/hold back quite some information with [gate]. is there a more elegant way to approach my request than with the following..?

simulating-several-data-inlets-for-gate

That's a perfectly good answer, but I'd definitely stay away from multiple metros. You don't need the prepends on the message boxes, either.

I'm not 100% sure of your question, but that's never stopped me from opining before. Some combination of gate & switch are what I generally use for this sort of thing.

I question the use of the pack/unpack in your example. There is certainly no obvious reason for them. Are you using them so that you don't have to put down two gates, or are you using them for synchronization? Maybe they're important for the rest of the patch that this was extracted from?

I'm not 100% sure of your question, but that's never stopped me from opining before. Some combination of gate & switch are what I generally use for this sort of thing. 

I question the use of the pack/unpack in your example. There is certainly no obvious reason for them. Are you using them so that you don't have to put down two gates, or are you using them for synchronization? Maybe they're important for the rest of the patch that this was extracted from?


thanks for the note, gregory! patchstorming in my case does bear quite some superfluous components, I admit :)

and thanks for the concern, chris! I'll literally need 100 of these gates, merely wanted to keep the amount as "low" as I can - instead of using 200 gates (for there are two seperate messages to be gated, as shown in the example). -these gates are controlled by 100 individual [receive] by the way, being piloted via [forward]-

I don't mind 200 gates (one for each message), wouldn't take much longer than 100 (thanks to copy 'n paste). and it's not really a synchronization matter.. but would it make a difference (in efficiency)..?

Gates are more efficient. Oh... you want me to show my work?

simulating several data inlets for [gate]