Pix - thanks for the comments. Of course, it slipped my mind to do that
- the square wave question reminded me of it, but I still managed to
miss the connection. D'...-uh. I'm not too fussed about cpu in this instance, and do want pretty small clicks from quite low frequency oscillators (I'm trying to experiment with impulses and feedback of various delays). I just hadn't bothered to make a really small number when I tried before. Actually, since writing I've realised that it actually doesn't work as I'd expect either - comparing to really small numbers causes it to do a bit of improv rhythm instead. Chalk one up for the glitch list, I guess. I'll use reaktor, as I've got it and does what I want fine in this case.
I guess it would still be nice to have a low cpu square wave, though, if the audio compare objects are costy - would they be more expensive than, for example, the version Frank Barknecht posted, despite looking simpler? cpu cycles are money, people ;-).
the reason it doesn't work is because comparing floating point numbers for equality rarely works. if you are doing a test for ==~ 0, the value will often be something very close but not exactly equal to 0. normally when comparing floating point numbers use test to see if they are closer than some very small number (normally referred to as epsilon), so you would do something like [phasor~] -> [<~ 0.01]... not that 0.01 is very small, but you get the idea.
tho i'm not trying to suggest that this is a particularly good way of going about it. it mostly depends what you want to use the pulses for.
the zexy signal comparison objects tend to be pretty cpu heavy anyhow, so i tend to avoid them. err... by cpu heavy, i mean if i use a few in an nqpoly grain, it starts to kill audio.
pix.