Question of how to script a for loop

Community Usage questions
1

Sorry to bother you again on here, but was trying to script my first 'for' loop in javascript to try and code a bit more efficiently but have run into problems! Just trying to iterate a loop 4 times to save writing it all out but am a bit out of my depth (as usual!). Cannot work out the correct way to get something like this to run:

for (let i = 0; i < 4; i++) {

if (Text+i < 5) {
setVar('KK@{parent.variables.a}DynChannelSelect', 'textColor'+i, '#6ffcd8')
} else
if (Text+i > 4 && Text+i < 9) {
setVar('KK@{parent.variables.a}DynChannelSelect', 'textColor'+i, '#8efd6d')
} else
if (Text+i > 8 && Text+i < 13) {
setVar('KK@{parent.variables.a}DynChannelSelect', 'textColor'+i, '#ecfd6d')
} else
if (Text+i > 12 && Text+i < 17) {
setVar('KK@{parent.variables.a}DynChannelSelect', 'textColor'+i, '#fdc66d')
}
}

Apart from the issues with the 'for' loop, I am not sure that Text+i for the variable is even correct! Apologies that this is all basic stuff, but any help would be greatly appreciated!

2

Hi,

First set Debug to true in the launcher window. Then watch for messages into the console.
If you want to test , add in your codeconsole.log(Text+i).

3

If Text is a string then Text+i will be a string too, which you can't compare to a number.

Also: don't use @{} in scripts (we talked about this recently)

4

Thank you both for replying, really appreciate it. Greenman, that is a great point, I will definitely refer to console log to check if the variable is getting named correctly (ie Text1). Jean Emmanuel, apologies for using @{} again in script, it is a bad habit leftover from when I first delved into OSC!:grin:

The variable 'Text1' in my script refers to a number not a string (I realise now that was a terrible name for a variable referencing a number!). The script above works correctly if I don't try and use a for loop (just using Text1, text2 etc), just trying to extend my programming chops (and failing) as I just need this code to run five times in a row! Can just long hand it though (don't know whether it is less optimized than the for loop that way though!). Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it though, I'll get there! :+1: