On 1/19/23 07:02, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
So, being able to call internal objects inside [clone] saves us the need to write a simple abstraction for this or any other object, which is good, but how would I be able to set the argument of [dac~] in [clone] and have it receive the instance number? That's something to think about, because simply calling "dac~" instead of an abstraction name doesn't or shouldn't do it.
i'm not actually sure i can follow your problems here. how would an [mc~] wrapper make live any simpler than [clone]?
could you please rephrase your elaborate examples for decaffeinated 5 year old with concrete examples?
e.g. you are saying that for creating a multichannel aware [dac~]:
In clone, I need a damn simple abstraction with [inlet~] going into [dac~ $1]
so afaict the idea is to get rid of this abstraction altogether, and be able to just use [clone -di -s 1 dac~ 16]
so you give a counter-example (instead of the "special-case [dac~]"):
let's think of a [lop~] object, we wouldn't really need to specify "$1" as an argument... it doesn't make much sense. It does make sense to maybe use a cutoff argument for all copies though, so you could have [mc~ lop~ 500] and all signal inputs get filter at 500hz.
again, i don't see why we couldn't juse use [clone -x -d lop~ 500]
how could that be different from your [mc~]? (well: apart from having to remember the actual incantation)
mgfadsr IOhannes