add createParam + createParams

[felixroos]

as requested by @guillaume-leo, this PR contains the methods createParam + createParams to be able to use custom params, e.g. for osc:

const dudu = createParam('dudu'); // for single params
const { dada, dodo} = createParams('dada', 'dodo'); // multiple params

the param can then be used either to start a pattern, or as a pattern method:

dudu('xxx').dada('yyy').osc(); // {dudu:'hehe', dada: 'yyy'}, osc message ['dudu','hehe','dada','yyy']
dodo('xxx').dudu('yyy').osc(); // {dodo:'hehe', dudu: 'yyy'}, osc message ['dodo','hehe','dudu','yyy']

the param is also patternified by default:

dudu("a [b c]") // {dudu:'a'}, {dudu:'b'}, {dudu:'c'}, 

[yaxu]

I think this could be useful enough to name them param/params

Also if param is called with > 1 parameter, how about it treats the remaining parameters as a sequence. Allowing:

var dudu = param('dudu'); 

but also:

param('dudu', 3, 4, 2).speed(2) 
param('dudu', "3 4 2").speed(2) 

Also as a pattern method:

note("a3 a4").param('dudu', "3 4 2")

As sometimes you might want to send a one-time-only parameter.

In fact in tidal, this function is just p (although they have to be specialised with a type so pF for floats,, pS for strings etc)

[felixroos]

In that case param('dudu') shouldn't add .dudu to Pattern i suppose?

[yaxu]

Hmm. Maybe param('dudu') should but param('dudu', <pattern>) shouldn't?

[yaxu]

and .param('dudu') should be a no-op (or maybe raise an error)

[felixroos]

or just separate param and createParam(s) ?

[yaxu]

Yes could be..

[felixroos]

or maybe it looks cooler to do Pattern.createParam('dududu') . I think most of the time, there will be a hand full of custom patterns used that are created beforehand as a setup step, but still the param(name, ...pats) would be useful for inline usage and or patternified param names

[yaxu]

Hmm I think this is tangentially related to #34 . Being able to stick pF in patterns is particularly useful in tidal due to block based evaluation. When you evaluate everything then there's less cost to having separate statements.

[yaxu]

(I talked in a circle here but happy for you to merge whatever feels right!)

[felixroos]

I'll merge this now, we can add the inline param function in a separate feature