Feature Request #821

proposition for the automatic naming of a view patcher

Added by Théo de la Hogue over 6 years ago. Updated over 4 years ago.

Status:RejectedStart date:2011-07-13
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:Théo de la Hogue% Done:

0%

Category:-Spent time:-
Target version:MVC for 0.6
Branch:

Description

when instanciating a view patcher :

if there is no argument : the name will be /modelClassName(view)

if there is 1 argument : the name will be /firstArg.(view) or /firstArg.1(view)

if there is a second arg: the name will be /secondArg


Related issues

Copied to Max - Feature Request #1493: proposition for the automatic naming of a view patcher Closed 2011-07-13

History

#1 Updated by Théo de la Hogue over 6 years ago

Finally we decided to change a bit the proposition :

when instanciating a view patcher :

if there is no argument : the name will be /modelClassName(view)

if there is 1 argument : the name will be /firstArg(view) or /firstArg(view).1

if there is a second arg: the name will be /secondArg

#2 Updated by Julien Rabin over 6 years ago

Not sure I get the point. Am I correct in understanding that if I want to specify my own full name I then need to specify two args including the first one that is needed for nothing ?

If there is a real need to have 3 different cases (I personally think cases 1 and 3 are enough), couldn't we have something like:

no args = /modelClassName(view) ;

1 arg (followed by an optional 0) = /arg ;

2 args (view name + 1) = /arg(view).

Théo de la Hogue wrote:

Finally we decided to change a bit the proposition :

when instanciating a view patcher :

if there is no argument : the name will be /modelClassName(view)

if there is 1 argument : the name will be /firstArg(view) or /firstArg(view).1

if there is a second arg: the name will be /secondArg

#3 Updated by Pascal Baltazar over 6 years ago

maybe I misunderstood your point, Julien, but the first argument specifies which model to bind to
e.g. arg1=/mouse.2 will bind the view to the model named /mouse.2

the second argument is used because the view is also a model, regardless of which model it binds to (which allows e.g. to have different parameters for different views binding on the same model....)

is that clearer ?

#4 Updated by Julien Rabin over 6 years ago

yeah yeah yeah, totally clear.

I did not fell in my plate yesterday (comme on dit) and this got me unnecessarily confused. This makes sense today. :-) Sorry for noise.

#5 Updated by Théo de la Hogue over 5 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved

this is working now.
but only if the view patcher is embedded into a bpatcher.
is it problem ?

#6 Updated by Pascal Baltazar about 5 years ago

Ideally, it would be great that it works identically in abstractions and bpatchers... what is the reason for this difference ?

Is this related to the "jcom.view: a view patcher have to be embedded into a bpatcher" message ?

#7 Updated by Trond Lossius over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Rejected

Also available in: Atom PDF