Andy Farnell wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:08:20 +0100 > Derek Holzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sending a "bang" message to the [until] object, created without an >> argument saying how many times the bang should be done, will give >> roughly the same effect-- > > If only! > > Objects that overflow the stack cause an exception, most of which trap > nicely and you get a gentle report not to do that again. > > Sending an unqualified bang to [until] will have you reaching for power > switch because it enters a very tight loop with no exit condition and no > hope of even seeing a SIGINT. > > I know we like to pretend this is "feature", but isn't it time to treat it > as a bug?
so what is the behaviour you would like to see? only allow fixed sized loops? stop iterating after a maximum 10 bangs? use [del 0] inbetween to make the loop interruptible? all of the above would break a lot of my patches. btw, Pd does not freeze for me. while i am typing this email, an infinite [until] is eating most of my CPU power (but not all). now i did send it a SIGINT and this freed my CPU. mfa.sdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
