I think that using [throw~]/[catch~] and [s~]/[r~] can do the job really ..i'm not sure what are you trying to archieve but i hope you get my idea ..
also, can someone tell if sending or throwing signals adds any processing overhead?
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
Yes. This was a design goal from early on. A dynamically rewritable signal graph is quite essential to advanced procedural audio.
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:04:09 +0200 Tim Blechmann tim@klingt.org wrote:
I'm excited about the idea of a more object-oriented approach, and especially with the idea of ditching all the Tk/Tcl garbage, but I don't really see the utility of re-implementing all the DSP graph code.
depending on their implementation, it may be possible to do click-free changes of the dsp graph, which is the weakest part of the dsp engine of pd. from my understanding impossible to fully eliminate audio dropouts when changing max-like signal graph, since the implicit resource access order may change, depending on the use case.
tim
-- tim@klingt.org http://tim.klingt.org
After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say "I want to see the manager." William S. Burroughs
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--
Sent from my 3 (http://three.co.uk) mobile broadband Third world internet for a first world economy.
- 20 bytes/second * 99% packet loss * 60 second latency
All for only £20/month (Odious and predatory terms apply)
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list