Hi,

I am trying to make an abstraction with one creation argument which can be a number or a letter. For example [my_abs 5] or [my_abs d].

If I put [symbol $1] inside and put a number as an abstraction's creation argument, pd tells me that the object expects symbol. If I put [f $1] and put a symbol as an abstraction's creation argument, pd tells me that the object can't be created.

It would be nice to have [anything $1]...

What I am trying to do is kind of pc keyboard controlled switch, with the possibility to have both numeric and alphabetical key controls. [key] will be the easiest solution, since it outputs numbers only, but in that case, I will need to check which number corresponds with which key.

Any suggestions, please?

what about

?

thanks mod for trying to help, but it is not what I am looking for. Will you, please, take a look into the patch? Maybe you'll get the idea what I want to do...

http://www.pdpatchrepo.info/hurleur/msw.pd

[lister $1] does that

http://www.pdpatchrepo.info/hurleur/msw.pd

i just looked up my old key abstraction. there's a simple workaround with makefilename.

also, looking at my abstraction again, you probably want to put a speedlimiter scetion in there, to stop rapid refiring when you hold a key down.

this patch has that bit too:

http://www.pdpatchrepo.info/hurleur/msw.pd

Thanks Gromit and mod!

Both solutions are working...
[lister] is what was missing in pd vocabulary.

also, looking at my abstraction again, you probably want to put a speedlimiter scetion in there, to stop rapid refiring when you hold a key down.

... I don't think I need speed limiter there. [change] will do the job.
And your idea to put $1 inside a [sel] object is brilliant.

[lister] doesn't do anything that you can't do with the vanilla

objects. It says in the helpfile that it's deprecated, so there's no real reason to use it.

@sinewave said:

... I don't think I need speed limiter there. [change] will do the job.

it depends how you have key repeat set up in your system preferences, but usually if you hold down a key, then after 500ms to 1sec it will rapidly fire key down/up messages. That's so, for example, when i hold down the 'q' key, i can get:

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

even with a [change] object, you'll still get key down/up messages alternating.

of course, if you have key repeat turned off in your OS, or if you're never going to hold a key down for more than half a second, it won't matter for you...but give it a go with holding your key down for a couple of seconds, and see what i mean.

thank you for your help:)

@mod said:

it depends how you have key repeat set up in your system preferences, but usually if you hold down a key, then after 500ms to 1sec it will rapidly fire key down/up messages. That's so, for example, when i hold down the 'q' key, i can get:

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

even with a [change] object, you'll still get key down/up messages alternating.

of course, if you have key repeat turned off in your OS, or if you're never going to hold a key down for more than half a second, it won't matter for you...but give it a go with holding your key down for a couple of seconds, and see what i mean.

I am getting repeated 1's, not alternating 0's and 1's, and all that occurs before the [change] object. And yes, my aim was to build a switch whose output is 1 as long as I am holding the key pressed.

@Maelstorm said:

[lister] doesn't do anything that you can't do with the vanilla

objects. It says in the helpfile that it's deprecated, so there's no real reason to use it.
I tried , but it gets destroyed when you put a letter as a creation argument in my abstraction:
list $1
...couldn't create
list k: unknown function

[lister] works ok, but I will adopt mod's solution (because I tend to keep all my abstractions and patches external independent. Actually, I think that [sel $1-key] was THE answer to my problem. That way, you always make sure that [sel] object is "symbol oriented", so you never get an error message "expected that, but got this". This is why I think it is a brilliant solution, so thank you mod, once again .

@sinewave said:

thank you for your help:)

I am getting repeated 1's, not alternating 0's and 1's,

might be different depending on operating system then. i definitely get ones and zeroes on my osx macbook

@sinewave said:

I tried

, but it gets destroyed when you put a letter as a creation argument in my abstraction:
list $1
...couldn't create
list k: unknown function
That's because the first argument of defines its functionality (i.e. , , etc.). By default, = , but if you just do it will try to change "append" to something else. In the example you gave, it's trying to make , but "k" isn't one of 's functions. So instead you have to do to make sure has a function and you still get your arguments.

Thanks Maelstorm,

your explanations is so clear and precise. I wish you wrote pd manual.