Lao Yu wrote: > For the sake of replying one rather angry reaction (I guess he won't > read)
whomever you are referring to here - it's very much likely that they will read your post. you seem to be used to hostile mailinglists. even though i (personally) am often grumpy, i would not consider the Pd-list to be hostile in general. > - when incrementing a coarse / fine value of for instance > tuning it is totally irrelevant which parameter is changed first. the this is not the point. the point is that if you do have control over execution via a hot/cold inlet model, you can very easily write all-hot objects that circumvent this. (as without doubt the numerous patches sent in this thread have demonstrated; i haven't had a look into them). on the other hand, it is impossible to build a hot/cold object if your system provides only all-hot objects. > point is to output a new value whenever either is changed. So > pointing out that the hot/cold logic is essential to pd's workings > doesn't even remotely give me a clue. nobody said that hot/cold logic is essential to Pd's workings. what has been said is that understanding hot/cold logic is essential to work with Pd. since this was your problem, i don't know what other clue one could have given to you. fgmasdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
