04-06-2021, 01:56 PM
Ok.
I think I've adjusted my understanding of how clocking of tables works [enough] to make things work the way I want them to work. Except for the realization that all tables share their position pointer. I honestly had thought they are independent and considered that part of the power of SPFX 011.
I still think that individual position pointer per table would be an extremely valuable addition as it allows for all sorts of evolving patterns to happen (and I could get rid of all my external 8-step sequencer... tables are more powerful anyway
). And it would turn tables into real sequencer inside the sequencer.
The concern w/r to added complexity IMO could be dealt with by providing extra commands to move the position pointer of a particular table, possibly add a "reset all table pointers to 0" command (for SYNCH). The current SPFX 011 command would then be renamed to "increment all table position pointers" (or something to that end), i.e. all existing stuff remains unchanged.
I understand that the existence of complicated functionality will also lead to people trying it and being frustrated by "it not working the way they think it should". I do hope that this could be prevented by proper documentation. If it would help convincing you to make that happen I'd certainly be willing to write up use cases and example HOW TOs for this. Basically along the line of the stuff I wrote in this thread (w/o the mistakes due to me not understanding how things work
)
Kind regards,
Michael
I think I've adjusted my understanding of how clocking of tables works [enough] to make things work the way I want them to work. Except for the realization that all tables share their position pointer. I honestly had thought they are independent and considered that part of the power of SPFX 011.
I still think that individual position pointer per table would be an extremely valuable addition as it allows for all sorts of evolving patterns to happen (and I could get rid of all my external 8-step sequencer... tables are more powerful anyway
). And it would turn tables into real sequencer inside the sequencer.The concern w/r to added complexity IMO could be dealt with by providing extra commands to move the position pointer of a particular table, possibly add a "reset all table pointers to 0" command (for SYNCH). The current SPFX 011 command would then be renamed to "increment all table position pointers" (or something to that end), i.e. all existing stuff remains unchanged.
I understand that the existence of complicated functionality will also lead to people trying it and being frustrated by "it not working the way they think it should". I do hope that this could be prevented by proper documentation. If it would help convincing you to make that happen I'd certainly be willing to write up use cases and example HOW TOs for this. Basically along the line of the stuff I wrote in this thread (w/o the mistakes due to me not understanding how things work
)Kind regards,
Michael