Re: [PD] pd and 64bit Linux again
Am Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 03:59 schrieb Malte Steiner: Miller Puckette wrote: I think most of the 64-bit bugs only got cleaned up for 0.41 (and the test version in CVS is pretty stable at the moment) ok, I give it a try tomorrow and post back here. Thanks for the info, just run 0.41 on 64studio 64 bit and a complex patch (CUBEmixer) just run fine. But the disk access makes a DAC-slip on the 2.6.22 realtime kernel, much worse than on non-realtimekernel. Is there anything to adjust on the kernel site to get better disk access scheduling ? mfg winfried -- -- - ao.Univ.Prof. DI Winfried Ritsch - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://iem.at/ritsch - Institut fuer Elektronische Musik und Akustik - University of Music and Dramatic Art Graz - Tel. ++43-316-389-3510 (3170) Fax ++43-316-389-3171 - PGP-ID 69617A69 (see keyserver http://wwwkeys.eu.gpg.net/) -- ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] pd and 64bit Linux again
I've been getting various real-time problems too, but I'm not sure whether to blame the new Pd version, or the 64-bit kernel, or the new machines I'm running it on. Just to make things one bit more compicated, I've updated the included version of portaudio and added optional callback scheduling too -- I'll probably upload changes to CVS after another day or so of testing. cheers Miller On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 11:25:17AM +0200, Winfried Ritsch wrote: Am Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 03:59 schrieb Malte Steiner: Miller Puckette wrote: I think most of the 64-bit bugs only got cleaned up for 0.41 (and the test version in CVS is pretty stable at the moment) ok, I give it a try tomorrow and post back here. Thanks for the info, just run 0.41 on 64studio 64 bit and a complex patch (CUBEmixer) just run fine. But the disk access makes a DAC-slip on the 2.6.22 realtime kernel, much worse than on non-realtimekernel. Is there anything to adjust on the kernel site to get better disk access scheduling ? mfg winfried -- -- - ao.Univ.Prof. DI Winfried Ritsch - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://iem.at/ritsch - Institut fuer Elektronische Musik und Akustik - University of Music and Dramatic Art Graz - Tel. ++43-316-389-3510 (3170) Fax ++43-316-389-3171 - PGP-ID 69617A69 (see keyserver http://wwwkeys.eu.gpg.net/) -- ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] pd and 64bit Linux again
Just to make things one bit more compicated, I've updated the included version of portaudio and added optional callback scheduling too -- I'll probably upload changes to CVS after another day or so of testing. I'm very curious about your implementation. Tim and I had to make various tricky things to achieve proper timing and audio device configuration within devel_0_39. I'll check in some more fixes hopefully tomorrow. Looking forward to the pdconf! greetings, Thomas ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a send object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're sending more than one) the message box wins. cheers Miller On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:36:33PM -0400, marius schebella wrote: Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [HID] Object - How to Ignore message event...
I haven't seen it. But since you use [route] to filter the output data, I don't see why this would be necessary. Unless element 10 is simply flooding you with too much information. But that usually only causes problems when the data is printed to the PD window. Use debug 0 to turn off the printed messages and then [hid] will use a lot less CPU. d. Carlos Caires wrote: Hi all, I´m working around with the [HID] object, and I can´t see any way to ignore a particular event key(as in Max/MSP with the HI object where we can send an [ignore( message to any element e.g. [ignore 10( don´t output data from element 10). Is the any similar message for the HID object? -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 50: Distort time ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] [HID] Object - How to Ignore message event...
Hi all, I´m working around with the [HID] object, and I can´t see any way to ignore a particular event key(as in Max/MSP with the HI object where we can send an [ignore( message to any element e.g. [ignore 10( don´t output data from element 10). Is the any similar message for the HID object? Thanks for your help. Carlos. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a [loadbang] | [13] | [s value] construction for each value. this: [loadbang] |__ |;/ |value 34 | |somevalue 127| |othervalue 57| |yoyo 1___\ looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it? roman On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote: Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
True - i could never understand why this isn't the case. But i remember that there have been related discussions on the list months or years ago greetings, Thomas Am 16.08.2007 um 19:10 schrieb marius schebella: it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Roman Haefeli wrote: i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a [loadbang] | [13] | [s value] construction for each value. this: [loadbang] |__ |;/ |value 34 | |somevalue 127| |othervalue 57| |yoyo 1___\ looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it? roman On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote: Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;- messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http:// messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? It used to be that ; was the only one to allow a variable destination (more so than just the $1 of an abstraction...) whereas [s] was the only one to send messages of variable size. now in 0.40 both can be done at the same time using [s]. If using Johannes' $* feature, you'd also be able to do both in a messagebox. is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). i'd say that it depends on the situation, but if you can't measure the difference, then it does not matter. You could use [realtime] and [until] with a big enough number of repetitions if you want to benchmark it. If you want to measure just the messagebox and not measure the [until] that you have to use with it, then you will have to subtract the time of an [until] alone. If you try to do it only with one message without [until], your result will be really imprecise. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Miller Puckette wrote: I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a send object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're sending more than one) the message box wins. If you are sending a variable number of elements then the [s] wins because the messagebox can't do it... jMax did it... there has been a proposal to have support for $* in Pd as well. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Roman Haefeli wrote: i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a [loadbang] | [13] | [s value] construction for each value. this: [loadbang] |__ |;/ |value 34 | |somevalue 127| |othervalue 57| |yoyo 1___\ looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it? roman On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote: Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
To start with, $ args mean different things in message boxes, so it's not clear what $0 would mean in a message box. Making $0 in a message box behave like $0 in an object box could be a quick hack, but it could also have ramifications going forward. .hc On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Thomas Grill wrote: True - i could never understand why this isn't the case. But i remember that there have been related discussions on the list months or years ago greetings, Thomas Am 16.08.2007 um 19:10 schrieb marius schebella: it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Roman Haefeli wrote: i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a [loadbang] | [13] | [s value] construction for each value. this: [loadbang] |__ |;/ |value 34 | |somevalue 127| |othervalue 57| |yoyo 1___\ looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it? roman On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote: Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;- messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http:// messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list kill your television ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
actually, it isn't a mess at all, i think. i try to illustrate it with my previous example: [loadbang] | [$0] |_ |; / |$1-value 34 | |$1-somevalue 127| |$1-othervalue 57| |$1-yoyo 1___\ though, i wouldn't be against dollarzeros in message boxes, as well. roman On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 13:10 -0400, marius schebella wrote: it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Roman Haefeli wrote: i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a [loadbang] | [13] | [s value] construction for each value. this: [loadbang] |__ |;/ |value 34 | |somevalue 127| |othervalue 57| |yoyo 1___\ looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it? roman On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote: Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Am 16.08.2007 um 19:32 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner: To start with, $ args mean different things in message boxes, so it's not clear what $0 would mean in a message box. Sure but $0 means something different than $1 etc. in an object box too, so i don't see the point. Making $0 in a message box behave like $0 in an object box could be a quick hack, but it could also have ramifications going forward. As I guess it's just a question of doing it, the conference would be a good place to discuss it. greetings, Thomas ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? I cannot speak for Miller, but one difference with message-senders is, that you send to various receivers in one go: [; detune 0.2; freq 440; vol 80; ...( which sometimes is handy for initializing many things with one click and in a central place. Also msg-bangs will warn, if there is no receiver available. send-sends just send and ignore it, if they send to nothing. is one more efficient then the other send-sends are much more effective than msg-sends, I suppose mostly because of dollar-variable replacements. See attached benchmark-patch. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ benchmark-sends.pd Description: application/puredata sendsend.pd Description: application/puredata msgsend.pd Description: application/puredata ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] documentation material for Pd related grants, funds, and prizes
Hi, the money for Pd topic was already discussed often; pd licenses for universities, several other ways to support the development of pd like conventions, google summer of code and so on. although it never lead to results... I was thinking of funds or prizes like the ars electronica festival. I am still not sure if Pd will fit in one of the categories, but I know that you have to send a DVD about the project/community. maybe the pdconv would be a good place for some interviews and shoot good footage. one principle question for me with submissions is, if someone should be in charge of the pd community? like an official speaker, or a table of people. honestly I think no, but without that it will be more difficult to access some of the money. (does pd development need money at all???...) the more tanglible question is, if there is someone who wants to help getting this done, filming, interviewing, cutting, writing, research. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this. Kevin On 8/16/07, Matteo Sisti Sette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: marius schebella wrote: it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Yeah, and the very same happens when you use [send/receive $1-blabla] and you need to change it into a message box. I personally think it is a pitty that message boxes use $'s with a different meaning than objects; it would be far more elegant (in my opinion obviously) if message-arguments used a different symbol, and if the $n in a message box referred to the n-th argument of the patch, not the message; that would include $0. That's how max works (if I'm not confused), where I think # refers to patch creation arguments and $ refers to message arguments (though probably max doesn't have a #0, does it?) That's the ONLY one thing I like more in max than in PD... up to now. The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a third symbol, say @ (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the $n of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n. Is this nonsense? matteo -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, l'inserzione è gratuita! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891d=16-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- http://pocketkm.blogspot.com ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a third symbol, say @ (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the $n of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n. yes, for compatibility it is only important, that old patches will still run on new versions, but new features don't have to be compatible with old versions of pd. why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
the first appearance of $0 is substituted by 1000, the next with 1001 and so on. marius. Kevin McCoy wrote: How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this. Kevin On 8/16/07, Matteo Sisti Sette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: marius schebella wrote: it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius. Yeah, and the very same happens when you use [send/receive $1-blabla] and you need to change it into a message box. I personally think it is a pitty that message boxes use $'s with a different meaning than objects; it would be far more elegant (in my opinion obviously) if message-arguments used a different symbol, and if the $n in a message box referred to the n-th argument of the patch, not the message; that would include $0. That's how max works (if I'm not confused), where I think # refers to patch creation arguments and $ refers to message arguments (though probably max doesn't have a #0, does it?) That's the ONLY one thing I like more in max than in PD... up to now. The only way of introducing such a facility without breaking backward-compatibility (or is it forward?), would be to introduce a third symbol, say @ (well it should be one that is currently not allowed in messages): @n if used inside a message, would refer to the $n of the patch (including @0), and outside a message box, i.e. in an object, it would be a synonim of $n. Is this nonsense? matteo -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Scegli ciò che stai cercando tra migliaia di annunci, prova con Email.it Annunci, l'inserzione è gratuita! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6891d=16-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
marius schebella wrote: [s] was the only one to send messages of variable size and Mathieu Bouchard wrote If you are sending a variable number of elements then the [s] wins because the messagebox can't do it... It is actually possible to send a variable-sized message with a message box, as illustrated in the attached patch. This simple example may not work if you want to send both lists (starting with a symbol) and meta-messages and preserve the integrity of both, but I guess it could be improved, I just meant to keep it simple. Am I using some 0.40-only feature? -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: 250 biglietti da visita Gratis + 42 modelli e Etichette per Indirizzo Gratis + Porta biglietti Gratis -Offerta limitata! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6783d=16-8 #N canvas 231 86 718 506 12; #X obj 232 142 list prepend; #X text 201 2 any message of any length here; #X msg 283 219 set \, add; #X obj 232 178 t b a b; #X obj 246 265 list prepend add; #X obj 511 336 r xxx; #X obj 511 363 print; #X msg 337 92 xxx; #X text 335 71 receiver name here; #X obj 246 290 list trim; #X msg 200 25 6 7 foo bar; #X msg 232 366; #X connect 0 0 3 0; #X connect 2 0 11 0; #X connect 3 0 11 0; #X connect 3 1 4 0; #X connect 3 2 2 0; #X connect 4 0 9 0; #X connect 5 0 6 0; #X connect 7 0 0 1; #X connect 9 0 11 0; #X connect 10 0 0 0; ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hallo, Matteo Sisti Sette hat gesagt: // Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: Am I using some 0.40-only feature? I think not, because your approach was the one used in the past, when [send] wasn't settable yet. But anyway: I also think, you're cheating, ecause you're actually changing the message box and thus creating many different message boxes on the fly, while the [s] isn't changed for variable length lists. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hallo, Miller Puckette hat gesagt: // Miller Puckette wrote: I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a send object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're sending more than one) the message box wins. Hm, but isn't that an unfair comparison? Just for sending stuff, I've found that [send] is way faster than a message box, regardless if I'm sending a number only or longer lists. ([s] is almost twice as fast in the little benchmark I posted.) If one also does some formatting operations, then that's something, a pure [send] cannot do, no fair benchmark comparison could be made between a [send] and a message alone, as the [send] would need an additional msg-box. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [HID] Object - How to Ignore message event...
No, not at all...I have no problems with the amount of information. The problem is that, for a certain purpose, a need the element 10 open for a period of time and close for another period. That is to say, I want to create limits to some key events. Let say that I have a [metro 1000] plus a [counter 360], between 100 and 200 the element 10 is opened, otherwise it is closed. Do you see any way to make this work within the HID object? C.C. -Original Message- From: Derek Holzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 8/16/2007 5:53 PM To: Carlos Caires Cc: PD-list@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] [HID] Object - How to Ignore message event... I haven't seen it. But since you use [route] to filter the output data, I don't see why this would be necessary. Unless element 10 is simply flooding you with too much information. But that usually only causes problems when the data is printed to the PD window. Use debug 0 to turn off the printed messages and then [hid] will use a lot less CPU. d. Carlos Caires wrote: Hi all, I´m working around with the [HID] object, and I can´t see any way to ignore a particular event key(as in Max/MSP with the HI object where we can send an [ignore( message to any element e.g. [ignore 10( don´t output data from element 10). Is the any similar message for the HID object? -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 50: Distort time Esta mensagem (incluindo quais quer anexos) pode conter informação confidencial ou legalmente protegida para uso exclusivo do destinatário. Se não for o destinatário pretendido da mesma, não deverá fazer uso, copiar, distribuir ou revelar o seu conteúdo (incluindo quaisquer anexos) a terceiros, sem a devida autorização. Se recebeu esta mensagem por engano, por favor informe o emissor, por e-mail, e elimine-a imediatamente. Obrigado. This message may contain confidential information or privileged material, and is intended only for de individual(s) named. If you are not in the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
marius schebella wrote why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius. # may be a good option, but: 1) It would not be as in max, it would be viceversa (max uses # for creation arguments and $ for message arguments) 2) I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch file $'s are actually saved as #'s (indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly) I didn't know about object attributes in PD. I will search and learn about them before I ask anything :) bye m. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Hai bisogno di contanti per realizzare i tuoi desideri? Prometeo ti propone prestiti da 1.500 a 31.000 Euro! Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6916d=17-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Frank Barknecht wrote: But anyway: I also think, you're cheating, ecause you're actually changing the message box and thus creating many different message boxes on the fly, Sorry, it was not my intention to cheat. I'll have to read the rules of the game again ;) I just thought I'd mention that in case anyone may find it useful. bye m. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Problemi di Liquidità? Con Logos Finanziaria 30.000 in 24 ore a dipendenti e lavoratori autonomi con rimborsi fino a 120 mesi, clicca qui * Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2911d=17-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
I don't know how easy/difficult an implementation of new variable names would be. I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, and a #0 or ?0 or @0 in a message or an object would behave like the old $0 var in objects. additionally the $1-$10 types could still be used in objects to be able to load old patches. but instead you could also use #1-#10 or ?1-?10 or @[EMAIL PROTECTED] that would make less confusion and you could also easily use #, ?, @ in messages... the object attributes mentioned below appear in flext externals and are very useful. very! marius. Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: marius schebella wrote why not use # as in max? @ is already used to access object attributes. marius. # may be a good option, but: 1) It would not be as in max, it would be viceversa (max uses # for creation arguments and $ for message arguments) 2) I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch file $'s are actually saved as #'s (indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly) I didn't know about object attributes in PD. I will search and learn about them before I ask anything :) bye m. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Hai bisogno di contanti per realizzare i tuoi desideri? Prometeo ti propone prestiti da 1.500 a 31.000 Euro! Clicca qui per un preventivo immediato. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6916d=17-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Kevin McCoy wrote: How does the 4 digit number get assigned to $0? I have always been curious about this. It's a special case in the program. It comes from the canvas environment, which exists for every non-subpatch canvas. Every such canvas gets a new number. it starts at 1000 and every new canvas gets a new number. It can be more than 4 digits. You can go up to 100 before it breaks A_DOLLSYM (dollar-in-symbol) and up to 16777216 in A_DOLLAR (standalone dollar). Adding more RAM or going to 64-bit mode does not raise those limits. Outside of pd, you can have much bigger numbers assigned to $0. For example, if you have a bill of 500,000,000,000 yugoslav dinars (http://images.goantiques.com/dbimages/UYR9212/UYR9212yd500.jpg), you can rest assured that it has the same value as $0. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
