Page 1 of 1
unique ID hash - #0 - doesn't work!?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:45 pm
by daan.brinkmann
Hi,
Was wondering if perhaps someone has any idea whether in M4L unique ID hashes, such as #0 will be supported?
Thanks,
#
Re: unique ID hash - #0 - doesn't work!?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:58 pm
by hoffman2k
For coll use: [coll ---foo]
For Send and Receive use: [r ---foo] and [s ---foo]
This keeps the objects unique to the device instance.
Re: unique ID hash - #0 - doesn't work!?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:13 pm
by daan.brinkmann
thanks!
(any idea why it isn't the goodoll' hash?)
hoffman2k wrote:For coll use: [coll ---foo]
For Send and Receive use: [r ---foo] and [s ---foo]
This keeps the objects unique to the device instance.
Re: unique ID hash - #0 - doesn't work!?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:19 pm
by hoffman2k
daan.brinkmann wrote:thanks!
(any idea why it isn't the goodoll' hash?)
hoffman2k wrote:For coll use: [coll ---foo]
For Send and Receive use: [r ---foo] and [s ---foo]
This keeps the objects unique to the device instance.
This is all I know:
David Z. wrote:--- will probably never work in the Max application environment. It is specific to other runtime applications of Max where the "loading context" is clear. It is not clear in Max itself however.
So in short #0 is still the norm for max patches. ---foo is used for M4L devices.
Re: unique ID hash - #0 - doesn't work!?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:08 pm
by daan.brinkmann
hmm, too bad.. since copy-pasting of older patches won't work if stuff is based on unique id hash stuff.
Re: unique ID hash - #0 - doesn't work!?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:22 pm
by hoffman2k
daan.brinkmann wrote:hmm, too bad.. since copy-pasting of older patches won't work if stuff is based on unique id hash stuff.
Yeah, but as off Max 5 the code is a little more readable. For big patches you might be able to get away with using a find and replace on the code.
Re: unique ID hash - #0 - doesn't work!?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:38 pm
by emmanuel_2
hoffman2k wrote:daan.brinkmann wrote:hmm, too bad.. since copy-pasting of older patches won't work if stuff is based on unique id hash stuff.
Yeah, but as off Max 5 the code is a little more readable. For big patches you might be able to get away with using a find and replace on the code.
Also don't forget that at the root level of a patch, #0 doesn't get replaced by an unique ID. Which is not the case with --- in the MfL context (as it was in pluggo).