Hi Atta, A bunch of us use "GenU" style chuck classes for this. I think it started with Frostburn on the board. Basically, you make a class that looks like this: public class GenU { Gain output; Gain input; fun UGen chuck () { return output; } fun UGen chuck (UGen ugen) { ugen => input; return output; } } Then you use it like this GenU None; None.chuck() => dac; You can even do (note the lack of parens) Step step => None.chuck => dac; Now, just have your classes inherit from GenU, and connect them like this. This is a sorta hacky workaround; there isn't, as far as I know, a way to do just None => dac. Cheers, Rogan On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Atte André Jensen wrote:

Tom Lieber wrote:

...

I'm pretty sure it's still not possible, so you'll have to write your own code to forward the samples to the dac by hand.

No problem. It would just be more elegant if the general chuck syntax could be extended with user generated classes...

-- 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

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