I thought about it again today and I agree, there's no fundamental need to have it. On the other hand, if you happen to be using lots of vline~s for scheduling breakpoint envelopes, there might be a big efficiency gain having the vline~ object manage the timeouts itself. (The vline~ object would still have to be dsingend to store multiple scheduled breakpoints in case more than one fell within a DSP block.)
cheers Miller
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:58:30AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
I think the question is, why have that book keeping available for vline~? Are there any practical uses for it?
Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to just accept a list like [0, 1 1000, 0.5 1000, 0 2000( where it starts at 0, goes to 1 in 1000 seconds, then goes to .5 in 1000 seconds, then goes to 0 in 2000 seconds. Why even have the extra digit?
i cannot follow you here at all. however, i would say that the 3rd digit is more or less useless (only there for convenience) because you can get the same behaviour with scheduled messages. e.g. [0, 1 1000 500( | [vline~]
is the same as
[t b b] | | [0( [del 500] | | | [1 1000( +-----+ | [vline~]
mfg,dr IOhannes
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list