Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 03:24:56PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
By the way a similar improvement in the message domain would be the
possibility to force an order among [r]s of a given [s]. In this
case the interface would be simpler: just a numeric argument for the
[r], for example:
On 2010-04-19 09:27, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 03:24:56PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
By the way a similar improvement in the message domain would be the
possibility to force an order among [r]s of a given [s]. In this
case the interface would be simpler: just
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 08:53:12PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
Now the subpatch trick (btw thank you for pointing me to the
documentation resources about it) doesn't help at all for [send~]
and [receive~] does it? I mean it's applicable but if you can
arrange the send and receive into
Hi frank,
Thank you for the clarifications.
However, I don't see how you would sort (i.e. force a desired
execution order) [send~]s and [receive~]s in a useful way, that is in
situations where you need them.
If the only way to force execution order is by actually creating a
wired path with
Hi Matteo,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:06:57PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
If the only way to force execution order is by actually creating a
wired path with subpatches, then it seems to me it is useless for
[s~]s and [r~]s because if you can sort them in a wired way, then
you can just
Frank Barknecht escribió:
Hi Matteo,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:06:57PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
If the only way to force execution order is by actually creating a
wired path with subpatches, then it seems to me it is useless for
[s~]s and [r~]s because if you can sort them in a wired
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 01:07:21PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
Frank Barknecht escribió:
*If* order matters to you (it may not always do) you can still use
the subpatch approach with dummy inlet~/outlet~ objects.
That's the part I don't understand. I mean I can't figure out the
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Attached is a very stupid example
Now it is, stupid me.
Ciao
--
Frank
#N canvas 0 0 450 300 10;
#X obj 172 110 s~ \$1-sig;
#X obj 172 61 noise~;
#X obj 178 84 print~ \$1-send;
#X obj 230 60 r PRINT;
#X connect 1 0 2 0;
#X connect
Frank Barknecht escribió:
Attached is a very stupid example, which should show what I mean: Here
various abstractions are layed out in a way, that they execute in order.
Only one connection is used for order forcing, but still many s~/r~ are
active, all properly ordered.
Oh, I see, thank
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 01:07:21PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
Frank Barknecht escribi?:
*If* order matters to you (it may not always do) you can still use
the subpatch approach with dummy inlet~/outlet~ objects.
That's the part I don't understand. I mean I can't figure out the
10 matches
Mail list logo
