On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Jaime Oliver <jaime.oliver2@gmail.com> wrote:
If I am understanding correctly the alternative mode, the idea is not so much to put it at the end or at the beginning, but to have a routing mechanism incorporated so that if you send the message

1 2 3

to clone,

then instance 1 gets the message 2 3 in its inlet.

right?

In the mode where $1 is the instance number this would be done by putting in the abstraction

[inlet]
|
[route $1]

Then the outlet would prepend the instance number?

How would this all be managed with audio?
Are we making it unnecessarily complex?

J

> On May 18, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> OK... sounds like it's worth putting in. I guess with the one-letter it
> already takes (-s) I should also add something like a -e flag to put the
> number argument at the end of the list instead of the beginning, or something
> like that.
>
> cheers
> Miller
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 07:20:29AM -0700, Alex Norman wrote:
>> I see your point, the abstraction need not know it's instance number since only the messages meant for it would be dispatched to it.. If you don't care about using sends directed to a specific abstraction then the $1 does nothing for you and if the flag to clone could ditch the $1 to instance setting and just set the arguments to the abstraction [clone -flag blah 20 1 2 3] makes 20 copies of blah with args $1=1 $2=2.. You could use more of your existing abstractions as is, using their args the same way with or without clone.
>>
>> I'm warming up to that idea.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On May 17, 2016 6:44:51 PM PDT, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi@gmx.at> wrote:
>>> you can still disambiguate, because incoming messages are dispatched by
>>> the instance number and outgoing messages are prepended with it!
>>>
>>> My suggestion was mainly concerning all abstractions that work with
>>> inlets and outlets (as opposed to sends and receives), where you
>>> basically pass a message and get something out. This could be anything,
>>> from simple message filtering to a perlin noise generator. Or also
>>> existing audio modules that work with a message inlet. If there was
>>> such a flag, you could take any of these abstractions as they are,
>>> control them separately by prepending the instance number and route the
>>> message output (or use the sum of the audio output).
>>>
>>> I guess, people will use [clone] mainly for voice management for
>>> synthesizers, granular synthesis, complicated nested patches etc., but
>>> I also see a great potential for massive data generation by using
>>> existing simple abstractions and cloning them.
>>>
>>> Personally, I have many abstractions I would like to use with [clone],
>>> but either I'd have to rewrite them or make a wrapper abstraction. It's
>>> not a big deal, it's just that an alternative forwarding mode would
>>> provide some additional convenience (and could also encourage other
>>> usages for [clone]).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I can totally live without this feature, but would be happy to
>>> have it :-).
>>>
>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2016 um 02:35 Uhr
>>>> Von: "Miller Puckette" <msp@ucsd.edu>
>>>> An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi@gmx.at>
>>>> Cc: Pd-list <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
>>>> Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure... would anyone ever use this feature? The patch in
>>> question
>>>> would ahve to take arguments (if not, thre's no problem) but not use
>>> them to
>>>> disambiguate the instances (because clone will set them all equal
>>> anyway).
>>>> I have trouble imaginig anyone building a patch like that.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Miller
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:54:16AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
>>>>> What do you think about the idea with a flag for changing the way
>>> creation arguments are forwarded? It would be really handy if you could
>>> write something like
>>>>> [clone -flag 100 my-abstraction 5 6 7] and $1 $2 $3 will be
>>> substituted by 5 6 7 instead of [N] 5 6. This way you could use
>>> existing abstractions as they are, without the need for writing a
>>> wrapper abstraction to handle the creation argument forwarding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christof
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Mai 2016 um 04:05 Uhr
>>>>>> Von: "Miller Puckette" <msp@ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> An: "Jaime Oliver" <jaime.oliver2@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi@gmx.at>, Pd-list
>>> <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool, taking this suggestion. At least for now it will work
>>> either way,
>>>>>> but it's much more readable with the abstraction name first so I
>>> changed the
>>>>>> help file to invoke it that way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> Miller
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:13:37PM -0400, Jaime Oliver wrote:
>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would happen if instead of calling clone like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [clone 16 my-abstraction 1 5 9]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we called it with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [clone my-abstraction 16 1 5 9]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and then $1 seems quite appropriate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 11, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Christof Ressi
>>> <christof.ressi@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that $1 is most natural!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, what about adding an additional flag -foo for
>>> [clone], which changes the way creation arguments are parsed?
>>>>>>>> Passing -foo could ignore the object ID and rather forward
>>> creation arguments just as they are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This wouldn't break the current behaviour of [clone], but
>>> provide some functionality to deal with ordinary abstractions more
>>> conveniently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christof
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 um 18:06 Uhr
>>>>>>>> Von: "Ivica Bukvic" <ico@vt.edu>
>>>>>>>> An: "Miller Puckette" <msp@ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> Cc: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <zmoelnig@iem.at>, Pd-list
>>> <pd-list@lists.iem.at>, "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi@gmx.at>
>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number
>>>>>>>> What about having an if statement that detects clone object
>>> and if so, compensates for $2 discrepancy and assigns $1 to it instead
>>> and increments from there? This way the discrepancy is internalized as
>>> opposed to something user needs to deal with.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor
>>>>>>>> Computer Music
>>>>>>>> ICAT Senior Fellow
>>>>>>>> Director -- DISIS, L2Ork
>>>>>>>> Virginia Tech
>>>>>>>> School of Performing Arts – 0141
>>>>>>>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>>>>>>>> (540) 231-6139
>>>>>>>> ico@vt.edu
>>>>>>>> www.performingarts.vt.edu[http://www.performingarts.vt.edu]
>>>>>>>> disis.icat.vt.edu[http://disis.icat.vt.edu]
>>>>>>>> l2ork.icat.vt.edu[http://l2ork.icat.vt.edu]
>>>>>>>> ico.bukvic.net[http://ico.bukvic.net]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 11, 2016 11:50, "Miller Puckette"
>>> <msp@ucsd.edu[msp@ucsd.edu]> wrote:I gave this some thought but
>>> couldn't come up with anything more natural than
>>>>>>>> the "$1" idea. It allows for changing the other arguments
>>> more easily than
>>>>>>>> it would have been if the instance number were passed last.
>>> Also, somehow
>>>>>>>> it felt more natural to have the instance number first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there's interest in the idea, I could add arrguments to
>>> change the
>>>>>>>> behavior (such as putting $1 last instead of first)...
>>> Offhand I doubt that
>>>>>>>> would get used much though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>> Miller
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 05:26:21PM +0200, Christof Ressi
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There's also a pitfall: additional creation arguments for
>>> the cloned abstraction will start with $2.
>>>>>>>>> For example, in [clone 16 my-abstraction 1 5 9] '1' will be
>>> parsed as $2, '5' as $3, '9' as $4 etc.
>>>>>>>>> No problem, if the abstraction was written for being used
>>> with [clone], but bad when cloning existing abstractions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if there could be a way to get the abstraction
>>> ID without messing up existing abstractions... Maybe have a dedicated
>>> object?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For now, I think it's important to mention the parsing of
>>> additional creation arguments in the help file.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christof
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 um 16:25 Uhr
>>>>>>>>>> Von: "IOhannes m zmoelnig"
>>> <zmoelnig@iem.at[zmoelnig@iem.at]>
>>>>>>>>>> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at[pd-list@lists.iem.at]
>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PD] [clone]'s instance number
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-05-11 16:18, Liam Goodacre wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to access [clone]'s unique instance
>>> number from within the patch, a bit like a creation argument? This
>>> could be used to achieve differentiation between the abstractions, ie.
>>> if the abstraction contains "tabread4~ $-1.array" and the $-1 is
>>> replaced with the instance number, then each instance could read a
>>> different file. Of course there are other ways of doing this, but it
>>> would be neat to do it with clone, and I'm wondering if there's a way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> isn't this what $1 is already doing in clone's instances?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fgasdmr
>>>>>>>>>> IOhannes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at[Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at[Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list
>>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at[Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list
>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list