On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:57:12 -0600 "Charles Henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/19/07, Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think, that now, that the "negative numbers" bug of [until] where > > negative numbers acted like a bang, is fixed in the next Pd, maybe we > > should tell beginners that they can send a number into Pd when they > > are unsure if their patch is stopping [until] correctly. Maybe we > > should even *preach* to send numbers instead of a bang into [until] in > > general? If you use a large enough number, it's "almost the same" as a > > bang except that it will stop by itself at some point. > > I seem to be tuning in a little late, in this discussion, but if it's > a bad problem, couldn't you change the method of until to use only > floats? No, that's the point. I said the same (similar) thing and IOhannes put me right. Until is the only conditional in Pd we have (unless you construct your own messages with feedback arrangement) that gives a deferred conditional after executing at least once, just like DO-WHILE or REPEAT-UNTIL. If you constrain it with numbers then it's logically a FOR(range) construct. I know there's no situation where you actually want an infinite number of bangs, but where are you going to draw the line? The thing is not the logical behaviour of [until] but how to make it safer, because it is potentially very nasty. I've lost work to it more than once. > > > > > Ciao > > -- > > Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list