Re: [chuck-users] emulating UGen connections in own classes

Hi Atta, You unfortunately cannot do FooBar thingy.chuck() => dac; The declaration has to be on its own line (otherwise it looks like you're sending the FooBar object to thingy.chuck() ). I used to do something like thingy.connect(dac) but I found that it's a lot easier to string objects along in a chain if you have an overloaded chuck function. For example, I have an Allpass filter class that I use a lot when I'm designing reverbs, and I do Allpass A input => A.chuck => Delay d => ... A.chuck() => Delay d2 => ... The only irritating thing is remembering to write the parentheses when you don't chuck anything at connect. Hope that helps! Rogan On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Atte André Jensen wrote:

Rogan Carr wrote:

...

public class GenU {

Gain output; Gain input;

fun UGen chuck () { return output; }

fun UGen chuck (UGen ugen) { ugen => input; return output; }

}

Thanks for the idea, will try it out for sure!

...

Then you use it like this

GenU None;

None.chuck() => dac;

How about:

GenU None.chuck() => dac;

...

Step step => None.chuck => dac;

Now, just have your classes inherit from GenU, and connect them like this.

So you mean I could write my own class FooBar, that inherits from (the already defined in my scope) GenU and do:

FooBar thingy.chuck() => dac;

I have to decide if the slight difference in syntax (added ".chuck()") will be more confusing than what I normally do, which is having a member function "connect()", used like this:

FooBar thingy; thingy.connect(dac);

-- Atte

http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk _______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users