Hi IOhannes,

I modified my patch accordingly (see attachement), but this doesn't make any difference. It is still behaving as described in my first message.
If I remember correctly Miller doesn't use a trigger after a counter in the help files and examples (using a [f ] and a [+1] side by side). The same outlet (from f) is connected to the inlet of the [+ 1] and to the object receiving the counter's value. I agree with you that the use of a trigger would be the proper way of doing it, but if it were plain wrong not to use one I suppose that Miller wouldn't do it this way (for instance in the control example, 05.counter.pd).

I understand the use of triggers very well I think, and I use them practically everywhere. But here the problem seems beyond my understanding of execution order.

Have you (has anyone) tried my patch ? I have tried in 0.46.6 on both Linux and Win 7 and I get the same baffling results.

Pierre.

2015-06-03 14:57 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at>:
On 06/03/2015 02:34 PM, Pierre Massat wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I don't understand your answer... I mean I do know
> that one has to use triggers to connect to multiple inlets, but I don't see
> where I did something wrong in my patch. Do you mean that the prints
> attached to two outlets should be attached to triggers ?  Even then I don't
> understand how this could cause the entire sequence of counter values to be
> upside down.


well, i do think that you should use [trigger] even for [print]s, but
you are right that this doesn't make a difference.

however, your counter has a fan-out to three(!) inlets, and only one of
them is a [print].

use trigger.

gfmadsr
IOhannes
-


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