That looks like a safe choice for most users. I would expect that will save you some debugging down the line and do all the same things you intended in the first place
And knowing how it works will save me from over-patching around it to feel safer using it On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 9:08 PM Alexandre Torres Porres <[email protected]> wrote: > > well, I just updated the code, see if that's what you're looking for ;) > > https://github.com/porres/pd-else/blob/master/Classes/Source/blocksize~.c > > I got tons of changes ready to go for the next update of the ELSE library, > but now I need to wait for 0.51 to come out as I've already made several > changes that rely on the new functionality of inlet~ (plus other things) > > cheers > > Em qui., 16 de jan. de 2020 às 19:33, Alexandre Torres Porres > <[email protected]> escreveu: >> >> hey folks, what exactly do I need to do then? >> >> can you open an issue on https://github.com/porres/pd-else/issues? >> >> thanks >> >> Em qui., 16 de jan. de 2020 às 16:08, Christof Ressi <[email protected]> >> escreveu: >>> >>> it's certainly not a good idea to (possibly) modify the DSP graph while >>> it's being built. As I said, the external should use a clock to schedule >>> the message for the next tick. >>> >>> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2020 um 19:07 Uhr >>> > Von: "Charles Z Henry" <[email protected]> >>> > An: Pd-List <[email protected]> >>> > Betreff: Re: [PD] Any problems else/blocksize changing subpatch blocking >>> > during dsp? >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:03 AM Christof Ressi <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I also think that messaging an outlet in the "dsp" method is not a good >>> > > idea and it's better to use a clock with delay 0. The user might take >>> > > the output of [blocksize~] and accidentally do something which >>> > > interferes with DSP graph generation, e.g. by resizing an array, >>> > > creating/deleting objects, etc. >>> > > >>> > > Christof >>> > >>> > Yes it *could*, but I'm unclear on the timing. I've read and >>> > consulted the d_ugen.c code recently but . The block parameters are >>> > derived from block/switch and coded into the dspcontext struct which >>> > gets generated for each canvas. The parameters have to be known >>> > before "dsp" gets called in the current canvas (which would trigger >>> > the "blocksize~" output), but is the sub-patch dspcontext already >>> > built? I'll try to follow up later today and try to answer it >>> > >>> > That ambiguity could be resolved by looking at the "bang~" code. I >>> > just think it's an interesting question what is possible to happen as >>> > it is currently written >>> > >>> > bang~ sends properly timed messages by using: >>> > t_clock *x_clock; //in the data structure >>> > >>> > x->x_clock = clock_new(x, (t_method)bang_tilde_tick); // in the "new" >>> > method >>> > >>> > static void bang_tilde_tick(t_bang *x) // added "tick" method >>> > { outlet_bang(x->x_obj.ob_outlet); } >>> > >>> > and >>> > clock_delay(x->x_clock, 0); // in the "perform" routine >>> > >>> > Chuck >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > [email protected] mailing list >>> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> [email protected] mailing list >>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
