Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
a lot of logic is going on between all those s/r-pairs, which is hard to track down especially when trigger-problems might occur.
tip: use [trigger] for explicitly defining when to send a message to [print] (e.g. what happens before things are [s]ent and what happens afterwards)
This probably is not (or not only) a trigger problem like we discussed here lately, but more: it could be a problem with various send/receives in various abstractions firing in a not clearly defined order - and this while letting the sender in the end loop back to itself. Very confusing and possibly dangerous.
Although there are triggers inside the abstraction as it should be, it's not clear, which of the sends inside which abstraction
So basically - at the danger of explaining the Pd language again and the syntax of abstractions ;) - we might be dealing with an "order of execution" problem on an advanced higher level. A very high level actually.
What I would do if this was my project, is to remove abstractions (literally "unrolling the loops") and see if the flow of the patch is still correct. Then later I would work on carefully abstracting out things again.
For starters it will probably be helpful to just replace the [r $1-send] in the abstractions by inlets and speak to those though triggers in a defined order. But as I still do not clearly understand what the patch *should* do in the end, it's hard to say if this will help.
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__