On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 22:17 +0100, Steffen Juul wrote:
On 27/01/2008, at 2.58, 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.
Kyle wants to, correct me if i'm wrong, translate
[0, 1 1000, 0.5 1000 1000, 0 2000 2000( | [vline~]
into
[0, 1 1000, 0.5 1000, 0 2000( | [nothirdVline~]
That is have the object do the delay bookkeeping.
Or maybe this would to instead:
[0, 1 1000, 0.5 1000, 0 2000( | [vlineBookkeeper] | [vline~]
oops, it seems i misunderstood kyle as well.
a [vlineBookKeeper] should be pretty straight forward to realize with a handful of [list] objects. have a look at the help-file of [list] -> 'another sequencer' for a starting point.
in order to make it work exactly how you described, you would have to convert all messages (separated by commas) to one big message, while making sure, that each message consists of a pair of elements. i think it would make sense to convert a '300' message to '300 0' (assume 0, if second argument is not given).
[0, 1 1000, 0.5 1000, 0 2000(
convert to:
'0 0 1 1000 0.5 1000 0 2000'
serialize/delay by pair (using [list split 2] and [del] etc.)
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de