I think I have read it some long time ago somewhere.....
I also can confirm with a small test template......
But I reaaallly really would like some confirmation by others.....
So, my question is....when a script is residing in an object and that script refers to another object in the template, then Lemur works from THAT level of hierarchy and upwards...NOT from top - level down. Is this correct?
How I tested:
Container1 - contains a Fader and a Knob. The Knob has a script which is:
Fader.x = x;
Now, I duplicate this container and naturally I end up with:
Container2 - STILL contains a Fader and a Knob - their names are not changed because in the hierarchy, they are inside different containers.
Now, moving the knob in Container2 STILL controls the Fader in the Container2 and NOT in the Container1.
All good....Im just worrying that I might bump into unexpected behavior in the long run? or is it totally ok to leave it as is and not go:
Container1.Fader.x = x; for the knob in Container1
Container2.Fader.x=x; for the knob in Container2
A confirmation on how this works?
Re: A confirmation on how this works?
Not exactly sure what you mean here actually , , but it a question of 'lexical scope' I guess ...
Containers have there own scope so you can easily refer to those local objects, Fader and Knob are the local names to any Container. It is only when you want to access them from some where else that you need to use the Container1.object reference. This is pretty standard so you can encapsulate things, and easily duplicate them without have to tailor very single instance with Container specific names.
Is that sort of what you were wondering?
Containers have there own scope so you can easily refer to those local objects, Fader and Knob are the local names to any Container. It is only when you want to access them from some where else that you need to use the Container1.object reference. This is pretty standard so you can encapsulate things, and easily duplicate them without have to tailor very single instance with Container specific names.
Is that sort of what you were wondering?
iMac 2.8G i7 12G 10.6.8/10.7.2, Legacy Dexter/Lemur, Liine Lemur/iPad2, KMI SoftStep, 12Step & QuNeo , B-Controls, Mackie C4 etc
MaxMSP, Live Suite, Native Instrument stuff, etc Modified Virtual Guitar System etc All Projects/Modules © CC-BY-NC-SA[*][/b]
MaxMSP, Live Suite, Native Instrument stuff, etc Modified Virtual Guitar System etc All Projects/Modules © CC-BY-NC-SA[*][/b]
Re: A confirmation on how this works?
Aaaah ok thanks - yes your reply definitely covered my concerns.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 143
- Joined: 21 Mar 2015 02:26
Re: A confirmation on how this works?
its like that switch transport u helped me design,when i copyed it to different tabs i just needed to change all the pad nums in the scripts to match the pads, im wondering if i put that in its own container would i have had to do all that?
Re: A confirmation on how this works?
no. Inside a container you can use the same names for objects as in other containers. That way one can build little 'modules' inside containers that can be easily duplicated.
Formant+Eurorack, PPG wave 2.2, Korg MS-20, etc., EWI 4000s, QuNeo, etc., Mixbus32c, u-he, MadronaLabs, Samplemodeling, NI, etc., iPad2/4/Pro
-
- Regular
- Posts: 143
- Joined: 21 Mar 2015 02:26
Re: A confirmation on how this works?
damn i wish i knew that before copying like 8 trans,s
Re: A confirmation on how this works?
Thanks for the replies everyone!