Part versus sequenze name

[janamdo]

Seems to me confusing: a sequenze and a part name
Is it possible to to use only sequenze as name for a part ( because it is written on the sequenze)?

[MuTools]

It is! Why do you think it can be different?

[janamdo]

It is! Why do you think it can be different?

I draw a sequenze in Mulab..with a name on it "Sequenze"..that is OK
Than..i think what can i do with this sequenze ( or what want i do with this sequenze )..yes as example i do want o split it..but how ? ..yes rightmouse
What do i see : part and sequenze ( THAT is confusing )
I do understand this no problem for me, but more logical would be for part = sequenze and make a subdivision in functions what you wanna do with the sequenze
-

For the naming of the sequenze you can make a subdivision and for the functions too

It looks unorganized the rightclick menu of the sequenze: stick to one name:Sequenze

[MuTools]

Ok i see what you mean. Well: a part is not a sequence!! It are two different types of objects. And therefore they each have their context functions. For example: Split and Choose Color are part functions not sequence functions! But Transpose is a sequence function, not a part function. In fact, things are *very* organized. Maybe even more organized than you're used to. That's typical for an object oriented approach (maybe google about that, it's interesting). But once you see the light in it, you'll like it, because it's so organized

[janamdo]

Yeah, i understand form developer view that working with objects (OOP progamming with methods and so on ( i know it from delphi and php )) is the modern programming paradigma,but the user (NOOB,you know him now ..)is looking different to it

There are 2 objects with their own methods..is thei really now way to get this more userfriendly ( because you said: Ok i see what you mean)

Note: why can de sequenze not be the only object..you can make the methods for it ( came up this in my mind )

Than is Mulab as a whole also a object? ..did you programmed it like this

[MuTools]

There are 2 objects with their own methods..is thei really now way to get this more userfriendly ( because you said: Ok i see what you mean)

I meant: i understand what you mean with part + sequence = same name.
At this point i'll keep things as is. Creating extra interface layers would cost time. Anyway, i'm convinced that the difference part <-> sequence is right.

[janamdo]

I assume that once you split the sequenze it becomes a object part

[MuTools]

To give you a more clear example:

Part->Delete is not the same as Sequence->Delete.

Hope this example clarifies it.

[janamdo]

I understand( i hope ) because it are two different objects with two different methods

Fascinating OOP

[pljones]

They're two different objects because... they aren't the same thing in the real world -- not because the programmer for some unknowable reason chose to do it like that.

I can use a sequence in different places in a composition using a part to place part of that sequence where I want it. The sequence defines the sequence of events that will play -- but not what player will play them or when, or where in the sequence the player will start or stop. But all of those are needed.

Having the information about how a sequence is played separate from what events make up the sequence gives you flexibility and powerful creative options to re-use motifs in a composition.