On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 09:46 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2017-01-15 22:58, Miller Puckette wrote: > > > > I can't understand what is wrong... if you 'stop' a line~ and then > > later > > give it a new target, it ramps form the position it had stoped > > at. I think > > this is the most reasonable behavior. Or is it doing something > > different > > somehow?
Before I create more confusion, let's focus on the ~ . I suspect [line] to be buggy, not [line~]. I only mentioned [line~] as a reference and since [line~] is doing what we agree it should do, I believe the behavior of [line] is buggy. > it starts from the original position, rather than the current one. > > that is: > if i stop a [0, 1 1000( after 999ms, the current position is > something > like 0.999. > however, if i then send it a [0 1000( i will start from 0 (does > effectively not doing anything, as it ramps from 0 to 0)! > > i would have expected it to start from 0.999 (or somewhere close to) > and > ramp down. Yes, that is the current behavior with [line]. I guess Miller was looking at [line~]. I'm sorry for not having been more clear in my second mail. Roman
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
