On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:43:57 -0600 "Charles Henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 7:58 PM, Chris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:22:44PM +0000, Andy Farnell wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:23:11 +0100 IOhannes m zmoelnig <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > but a [bang(--[until] is not meant to loop infinitely. > > > > it loops until a certain condition is reached. > > > > > > As it stands the behaviour of [until] is correct, but it's a very > > > dangerous > > > object unlike almost every other Pd object it's the only one beginners can > > > really screw up with. > > I think a useful feature that would perhaps be able to handle this > type of problem is a 'halt'/'continue' routine for message processing. > Say, for example, it could be automatically handled during a stack > overflow-clear the stack and send an error message. Or triggered by > the watchdog to catch bang/until problems. Something like that would > give you the opportunity to save/re-load or add additional objects to > stop the infinite loop, when not intended. The subject of the watchdog is really interesting and I'd love to hear a deeper discussion on it. But how do you propose to identify an infinite loop? At what point does the watchdog say "Hi I'm Clippy your Pd Watchdog... did you mean to create an infinite loop?" > but it would still run into those problems of finding an arbitrary > condition to trigger the 'halt' Hmmmm, there's beard stroker. :) a. > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Use the source _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
