It's an old habit from Max, but is a mistake in the context of Pd. Doesn't make any difference though, 0 is 0 far as I know :)
M
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 07:49:15PM -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
Cool, thanks! One more quick question: what about 0L (zero folowed by an L) I saw included with some clock delay instances inside pd's source? How is that different from just plain 0?
Ico
Miller Puckette mpuckett@imusic1.ucsd.edu wrote:
If you ask for clock_delay() of 0, it will fire before the next DSP tick, that is to say, as soon as possible.
cheers Miller
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:04:13AM -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Miller Puckette [mailto:mpuckett@imusic1.ucsd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:26 PM To: Ivica Ico Bukvic Cc: Hans-Christoph Steiner; pd-dev@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] more information on the gui getting stuck on 0.42.5
Hi Ivo -
It's unsafe to issue messages from inside a DSP routine, because the message could eventually cause tables to relocate or even a rebuild of the DSP chain. The safe thing is to schedule the message using clock_delay().
examples are snapshot~ and (more complicatedly) fiddle~ and bonk~.
cheers Miller
Many thanks for the clarification Miller. This helps a lot!
BTW, how often does the clock_delay() fire? Are we talking major delays that would effectively render this kind of a bang-based sync useless or is this something that occurs practically as often as dsp calls?
Best wishes,
Ico
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev