This is 'correct' behavior, although perhaps not intuitive - sub-patches
are considered atomic within their parents.  (I believe this is
different from the way Max manages things).

cheers

Miller

On 11/16/23 11:32, Clemens wrote:
>
> Hello there,
>
> I noticed that pd handles delayed feedback loops a little bit odd.
> Feedback loops seem to be only allowed within the sub patch that
> contains the delay as well. When I patch the feedback loop in the
> parent of the patch that contains the delay, pd complains with the
> usual error message and doesn't give me audio output.
>
> The screenshots below illustrate the issue.
>
>
>
> No problem in this case. Everything fine.
>
>
>
> I would argue this patch is functionally equivalent to the one above,
> but it refuses to run.
>
> Is this behavior intended?
>
> Best wishes,
> Clemens Wegener
>
> --
> —
>
>        |\
>        | \
>      C | H\
>       / \ |
>      /   \|
>     |\ A /|
>     | \ / |
>     |  |  |
>      I | R
>        |
>
> The Center for
> Haptic Audio Interaction Research
>
> http://www.chair.audio
> https://twitter.com/ChairAudio
> https://www.facebook.com/chair.audio
>
>
> +49 3643 583940
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list__;!!Mih3wA!FkWRblYhsgnkWpO53JyeaxPm2CdAzYXPJ06apXJeo-V3qpKddOyls4bN8rGq0vAOXz4vfLRCDSrXzdY$



_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list