Thanks Frank for showing a technique that uses [moses] instead!
I can see why this is the preferred behaviour, especially given your clear example.
./d5
On Feb 20, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, geiger hat gesagt: // geiger wrote:
Yes, thats what I meant. I have seen this "mistake" happen several times, the bad thing is that I think it is not easy to handle it from within Pd, as the error depends on the numbers you sum up, so you can't change select to react on a range instead of a specific number. It is said to be bad to test for equality with floating point numbers, and here is why. The best thing is to design your counters the way day5 does it, but it is something you have to know, otherwise you really get bad surprises.
I think, [select] should be avoided generally to end a counter. It carries too many assumptions about the counter value, that could turn out false. What if I [select]-wait for 16, and then later add a [mod 16] inside? 16 will never be reached. What if I count only even numbers and try to end the counter with 99? 99 will never bit hit. Etc. usw.
In C or similar programming languages, you never see loops made like this:
for (i=0, i != 99, i++) ...
Instead real loops walk this way:
for (i=0, i < 100, i++) ...
Using [select] in a counter is an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunatly it is taught in 2.control.examples/06.more.counters.pd :(
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list