Hallo, Peter Todd hat gesagt: // Peter Todd wrote:
Personally, I use $1 for a kind of address space for abstractions, rather than making things private. For example, a patch with two similar synths , which uses two similar envelopes, would be structured so that each synth and envelope was given a friendly name (maybe 'lead' or 'bass' or whatever) as the first argument. Synth-wide parameters use $1.parameterName, while the envelopes have names $1.ampEnv and $1.filterEnv. Similarly, within the envelope abstraction, $1.parameterName is used for sends and recieves. So, the sends and recieves for the attack [$1.A] of the lead synth's filter envelope become [lead.filterEnv.A], and so on. If access to the parameters is desired from anywhere else, there are no particular dirty tricks involved, and nothing changes when you reopen the patch. Of course, you can still use $0 as part of the name if you want to make it private at a high level. There isn't too much risk of accidentally conflicting send, receive, values or whatever, but names could get a bit long - so I try to keep them short.
This is not too different from the way, rradical does it, except this: rradical does keep all things local, while still allowing access through $1-named addresses. I intentionally did not use send/receive pairs for this. Although clashes are unlikely with consistently named sends, they still are possible and require a user to take care of this. Also sends require a user to remember all these names and write a lot of [s something] objects. This is fine, if you're the only user, but as soon as others try to use an abstraction library, things get too complicated IMO.
Instead all this is solved in rradical through the OSC x-let, which actually currently doesn't need to use OSC, plain [route] would work as well, but OSC made it much easier and has several other advantages (foremost that's pattern matching)
In rradical, no send names have to be remembered at all, because there are none! This is important. Everything is done through the OSC inlets, which basically are connected to [OSCroute $1]. This could be [route $1] as well. Then every parameter, that should be controlled, has another [OSCroute /paramname] which could be [route paramname] as well, if you want to avoid OSC.
Now if every OSC inlet is fed by [r OSC] receivers, a user of rradical has remote control of all parameters through one single global sender, if (s)he likes to do so, just by sending correctly formatted messages to it: "; OSC /synth/paramname 20" (OSC) or "; OSC synth paramname 20" (route, not implemented in rradical). No global sends at all, except one not named by me, but by the user.
I called this the "strict borders, single crossing" principle in RRADical.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__