I currently am storing numbers in a list. The numbers are in sets of 3s for representing Pitch, Volume, Pan. For example, [70 127 .5] is one set and each list has multiple sets. I would like to be able to remove or skip reading a set if the first number in the set (Pitch) matches one already in the set. For example in [34 127 .5, 39 127 .1, 34 127 .7] the last set would be skipped or removed (when reading the list) since the first number (34) matches the first number in the first set. Essentially, I don't want any duplicate Pitch's to go through.

Is there a way to sort lists in sets of 3? If so, I could just use the 'change' object. How would I best do this. I thought about using an array or table, storing the set only if the first number wasn't already utilized in the array, but I don't know how I would handle all 3 numbers (3-axis) in one array.

Any thoughts?

i'd construct something using messages for memorizing the values that are already in. [add $1( adds numbers to a list. every new number has to be checked against the saved ones and the control connection has to be cut in case it's already in. i don't think there's any specific objects for the job or any easier way to do it. a list of three floats can be split up with [unpack f f f].

there would be a million different ways to do this. i can't think of any 'instant' way, but if you just break it down into pieces, it shouldn't be too hard. old fashioned pen and paper are probably going to come in handy for a situation like this.

let us know how you go. if you get really stuck, i'm sure someone has a further suggestion.

one thing i often did when using multiple lists like that, was just to put them all together as one longer one. in your case, as you only have 9 elements, it might even be easy just to make a really big pack object, like:

[pack f f f f f f f f f ] and have the 3rd list trigger the left inlet.

then you would need to compare the 1st and 4th elements, the 1st and 7th elements, the 4th and 7th elements. (those would be all the pitches)

message boxes could give you the elements. ie:

[$1 $4(

and then just do an [==] comparison on them or whatever.

there would probably be a more 'universal' solution that could handle any size and number of arrays, but my feeling is that would be more complicated.

If you're dealing a limited amount of discrete values, such as MIDI note numbers, then I'd probably go with using a

Thanks everyone this was really helpful.

I basically used Maelstorm's method of using a table. I use the MIDI note (pitch) as the table index. When a new list comes in (pitch, volume, pan), I check if the table index at that pitch is 0 and if it is, I add the values to a 'final' list and set the index to 1 so another note with same pitch won't pass the next time.

I can post the patch in a bit in case anyone is interested. I'm not sure it's the most optimal way (kind of looks ugly - although most patches do).

Well, I thought I had things working but I don't.

I'm attaching a patch that demonstrates what's happening. For some reason it works if I pass the pitch, vol, pan values in using a metronome so that the values send slowly. But, if I bang a bunch of messages at the same time, it doesn't seem to work.

You can see the print messages. If the table is cleared, all messages should pass until there's a duplicate. This seems to work on the Method 1 in the patch. Method 2 though only seems to pass the first 3 messages and then doesn't pass the rest (even though there's no pitch duplicates).

I'm using PD in a c++ application (using libpd) and so I'm passing the pitch, vol, pan as a list from the c++ part of the application. The notes aren't send all at the same exact time, but they're very close together.

Can anyone spot and error?

http://www.pdpatchrepo.info/hurleur/table_test.pd

Your table is too small. Since you didn't give it an argument, it is 100 points by default. Usually, if you go outside the length of the table, [tabread] will just report the value as zero. But it looks like doing that in rapid succession throws it off. Anyway, if you just change the size of the table to 128, it works.

Ah thanks you! I knew it had to be something simple.