Alternate pattern cloning behavior

[mgd]

FWIW I find this replacement behaviour exactly as I would expect it. I don't know what your workflow is, but mine is such that I have my original pattern and then I create a copy of that somewhere else, hit clone and change it. Done.

[spilthyfred]

I keep thinking about this. I apologize if my original idea was too complicated. I just don't like that the clone replaces the original pattern.

Would it be possible to just have a setting for the clone to be placed directly below the pattern being cloned?

If there was already a pattern below, it would just overwrite that one instead.

FWIW I find this replacement behaviour exactly as I would expect it. I don't know what your workflow is, but mine is such that I have my original pattern and then I create a copy of that somewhere else, hit clone and change it. Done.

I know a lot of people are perfectly content with the current behavior, which is why I would like to see it as a setting. For what its worth I could see myself turning the setting back to original behavior for other applications...

For my usual workflow though, I almost ALWAYS want the cloned pattern below, so it would be quicker this way. Make a pattern, clone it, adjust, clone it again etc. etc.

With this setting enabled I wouldn't even have to think about it. No moving around to place original pattern before cloning. No searching for the pattern I wanted cloned. It would be one button press and the pattern would be where I want it. I could move to any pattern on the grid and just "make it happen".

I understand if this isn't your usual workflow.. but this would just be a setting to accommodate a workflow that I enjoy.

I feel it would be easy to implement, and easy to turn on/off.

[mvdirty]

FWIW I find this replacement behaviour exactly as I would expect it. I don't know what your workflow is, but mine is such that I have my original pattern and then I create a copy of that somewhere else, hit clone and change it. Done.

Yeah, mgd, I don’t see the issue either. In fact, I now see some larger ones with the suggestion, after the following came to mind:

I navigate somewhere with a pattern, decide to alter it while preserving the original, and so I hit the clone combo. Or I navigate somewhere with no pattern, place one, decide to alter it and so I hit the clone combo. Or I decide I want some looping variation, so I navigate a row down, place that existing pattern (either by copy/paste or just switching to the needed pattern number,) and hit the clone button.

All of these behaviours are consistent. Cloning alters only what is under the cursor.

What is being suggested would either break arrangements when used in various ways and/or would need further settings, logic, and/or behavioural variation to avoid doing so. Does it overwrite the cell below? Does it push cells down? Does it sometimes do one and sometimes do the other? Are other tracks pushed down as well? What if they shouldn’t be? Would I end up needing to jump in and out of the settings to get it to do what I want at different times? etc.

I can see where the idea is coming from, but the implications go deeper than the simplicity OP has suggested.

[spilthyfred]

No it would not push cells down, it would just replace the pattern below if there was one. I do get the sentiment of having to switch between the function being on/off though. That could be clunky.... so I have ONE last idea that could work for implementing this, and it actually just may be the best way to work this out....

I know Thomas is not fond of button combos but stay with me here.

SHIFT + DOWN and then OK. Cloned pattern goes below. No cells pushed down, just overwrite pattern if there is one. Boom. Original function stays intact and we are all happy