posted 03 January 2007 14:04            

is there a way to move through the values of an array smoothely? I tried til I turned purple last night..

and what do the error messages... "Extra characters after a period-->," Variable undeclared-->, HotVariables cannot perform the operation of:....." really mean, its obvious something is wrong with an expression.. but it is not as specific to give me insight on where to look to fix my problem... maybe the error messages could mean many things, to many to give a specific answer?

posted 03 January 2007 16:11            

"into" moves to points between the points in an array but it's not hot i.e it's smaltalk not cappytalk. So the way to do it is to use two identical copies of the array. One gets pointed to by the nearest int (truncated) below the index value and the other points to the 1 plus that int point. You then have to interpolate between the two derived values under the control of the fractional part of the index.

If you need a more detailed explanation let me know

hope it helps

Pete

posted 03 January 2007 16:36            

I think that into: IS capytalk, isn't it? If I understand correctly what Darwin is trying to do I think it should work. I just tried:

!Fader1 into: #({0 @ 0} {0.5 @2} {0.75 @ 4 } {1 @ 10})

and it works fine.

Cheers,

posted 03 January 2007 17:55            

I changed of : to into : in the array, along with adding the {0@..} {1@...} it worked perfectly..the values in the array now interpolate (move smoothely).

I'm not sure I really understood " One gets pointed to by the nearest int (truncated) below the index...." I will try to figure this out.. by experimenting with the into: array...

thanks again Pete

Darwin

edit: (into: was in the Capytalk Quick Reference.. (thanks Hector for your example above)

[This message has been edited by Darwin M (edited 03 January 2007).]

posted 04 January 2007 01:20            

What I was discribing was how to do

!Fader1 into: #({0 @ !V1} {1 @!V2} {2 @ !V4 } {3 @ !V5})

which doesn't work

This is because the elements in the "into" array are smalltalk and set up at compile time.

If you wanted the elements values to change while playing you would have to use two "of" type arrays as I described above not "into"

But it seems you didn't need hot elements in this case.

hope this makes sense