Hi Christof On Sat, 2022-01-15 at 15:51 +0100, Christof Ressi wrote: > > Oh, interesting. Haven't tried myself yet, but good to know that > > many > > patches wouldn't work. I can't get around using [receive~]. > > Have you seen my last reply ( > https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2022-01/130716.html)? > It describes how to fix this. (I would not recommend doing this in > practice, though.)
Yeah, thanks, I read it _after_ I wrote my last mail. That's good to know. > If more people think that they need to run Pd at a lower scheduler > block size, we should think about making it a runtime option. AFAICT, > there is no technical reason why it has to be a compile time > constant. It's not that I'm requesting it, but if it was there, I'd certainly play around with it. I just wanted to check if it is feasible and also if it makes sense at all. If this is a sensible thing, I'll put it into a feature request. 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
