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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
