Alternate pattern cloning behavior

[spilthyfred]

Hi, I would really like an alternate cloning behavior.


Current behavior:

When cloning a pattern it replaces the original one in the same spot.


Requested behavior when cloning a pattern:

1. the original one stays in its place

2. the clone populates at the first empty spot below it, and

3. the cursor also moves to this new position and the clone pattern is highlighted and "grabbed" so that you can then use the cursors to position the new pattern along the grid, then

4. press OK to execute.


This would be very useful to me, as I often write out a pattern and then clone it to make a variation. I like to string the patterns together with each variation below the last. With the current behavior, I have to clone it, and then reset the original pattern, and then move to the next spot below to place the new clone. It just feels a little clunky for my use cases.

Whereas with this new behavior, I could for example easily just press Shift+OK to clone pattern 00, and then OK again and I would have clone pattern 01 placed right below it. I could do this as many times as I like to make a stream of cloned patterns (00, 01, 02, 03...). Then I could go into each one and add my variations, plus the numbering of the patterns would be nice and tidy. If I didn't want the new clone pattern right below, I would just use the cursors to put it wherever I want before pressing OK to place it. Also, if there is already a pattern existing below the one being cloned, the new clone would just move down to the first available empty spot below to avoid unintentional overwriting. I suppose there could possibly be the addition of a "clone highlight" colour to the user interface setup too.

Please consider this., I hope it all makes sense!

[mgd]

That sounds reasonable to me. The current flow always seemed unnatural to me. I also like my pattern numbered neatly

Update: changed to 0 (was: +1)

[mewraz]

+1 From me as well. I have a very similar workflow with cloning a pattern and making variations like this.

[nsolarz]

+1 as well

[XORadmin]

I could probably sort that out in a different way. I am actuallty not a friend of this special mode where you start a cloning and then browse up/down where you place it. Also searching for the next empty spot or shifting is in my opinion too destructive for a sequencer arrangement or would take more work than the current situation.

What maybe would be a good option in my opinion (next to the current behaviour) is to mark some rows (could be also on multiple columns) and have a clone command in the Nerd Menu then. This would clone the most top pattern (if filled in) then into the spots below (with overwriting. So you would need to take care for the space yourself).

That would be a practical clone situation in one go. I can never guarantee following up numbers of course as it can be only done with emtpy patterns. And if there is someting in between then it is not being used.

[mewraz]

I like this suggestion very much!
The original pattern stays as is and then the clones will have the next available pattern number.
This workflow would also speed things up for me a little since I often have the same pattern repeated a couple of times.

[mvdirty]

Thomas, that sounds like a great option.

[spilthyfred]

I could probably sort that out in a different way. I am actuallty not a friend of this special mode where you start a cloning and then browse up/down where you place it. Also searching for the next empty spot or shifting is in my opinion too destructive for a sequencer arrangement or would take more work than the current situation.

What maybe would be a good option in my opinion (next to the current behaviour) is to mark some rows (could be also on multiple columns) and have a clone command in the Nerd Menu then. This would clone the most top pattern (if filled in) then into the spots below (with overwriting. So you would need to take care for the space yourself).

That would be a practical clone situation in one go. I can never guarantee following up numbers of course as it can be only done with emtpy patterns. And if there is someting in between then it is not being used.

Hi,

I definitely understand that the numbers would only be the available empty patterns, as thats just the nature of how it works.

But I urge you to still consider this implementation of this special mode, even if you are not friends with it. I definitely think that a lot of people would really love it, and if they did not, they could just keep the regular mode on.

As for the browse up/down/left/right, it would only be used if you wanted the pattern in a different place, and having a separate highlight color would make it very easy to see what you are doing.. In most situations though, browsing around would be unnecessary - it would normally just be two steps (Shift+OK, and then OK)... which is extremely simple and could be executed very very quickly. This could be done as many times as you like, and within a matter of seconds.

Not entirely sure why you're not a friend of moving around the grid, as it seems very intuitive to me. I will come clean and admit that I would also love to see a "grab" function in mark mode, so that you could easily just reposition marked patterns without having to copy, delete, and paste. Just my humble opinion, its the way my brain works, and I am sure I am not the only one.

I do feel like the nerd menu idea would be useful in certain situations, seems best for special use cases where you wanted to clone more than one pattern in a boxed area. The problem is that cloning single patterns would still feel clunky, both with the current clone behavior and this nerd menu behavior. I just want to be able to clone patterns on the fly without having to rearrange everything or go into nerd menu. It would be SOOOO much quicker!

I really hope you and my special idea can become friends!  

[mvdirty]

splithyfred, can you suggest which key combo you would want to claim for this function? They’re in limited supply, and functions have already been pushed to the nerd menu to avoid adding even more key combos or inconsistency in their behaviour when used in different places. Thomas’ option likely hits the sweet spot.

[spilthyfred]

splithyfred, can you suggest which key combo you would want to claim for this function? They’re in limited supply, and functions have already been pushed to the nerd menu to avoid adding even more key combos or inconsistency in their behaviour when used in different places. Thomas’ option likely hits the sweet spot.

mvdirty, there would be no need for a key combo at all! It would be an alternate behavior that overrides the current behavior for cloning. There could be an option to toggle the behavior on or off in the setup menu. This way you could choose which cloning mode is best for your workflow. For me, the current behavior does not feel right, and for others it might be perfect.