Hi,

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 01:07:21PM +0200, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
> Frank Barknecht escribió:

> > *If* order matters to you (it may not always do) you can still use
> >the subpatch approach with dummy inlet~/outlet~ objects.
>
> That's the part I don't understand. I mean I can't figure out the
> trick. I can easily imagine (and actually tried) how to patch things
> to force the desired order, but then again, I see myself obliged to
> do the wired connections that the [s~]/[r~]s were meant to avoid.
>
> May you please make an example of the technique? I would be so grateful.

Attached is a very stupid example, which should show what I mean: Here
various abstractions are layed out in a way, that they execute in order.
Only one connection is used for order forcing, but still many s~/r~ are
active, all properly ordered.

Real life examples may not be so easy to sort, of course.

> >And don't forget the other application of s~/r~ where you actually
> >*want* to have a delay of one block: feedback algorithms.
>
> Yeah but in that case I would rather use a [delread~]/[delwrite~] pair, ¿no?

Well, you could, but s~/r~ is much easier to use. Also
delread~/delwrite~ with a delay set to 0 won't have a delay of 0 in
feedback situations, so it may even be more confusing.

> Wow that sounds very interesting. I hope you will publish the paper
> on the internet so we can have a look

It will be in the LAC proceedings available on lac.linuxaudio.org soon.