hi list,
to not make a maze of a complicated patch i use quite often send/receive objects inside the patch.
triggered by the recent thread about execution order and depth-first, i'm starting to doubt the above mentioned habit.
in an much older thread it is said that: apart from the "right to left" rule for outlets (and inlets?) and the "depth first" rule, execution order in Pd is not defined.
does it mean that there's nothing to say/know about send/receive's?
for example:
when 2 different [send A]'s go to the same [receive A] will there be
used a "first-in first-out" procedure?
[send]/[receive]'s inside a subpatch are they handled before
[send]/[receive]'s which 'cross the border' of the subpatch?
any info about Pd's 'stack handling' is also appreciated.
rolf
hello,
snd/receive react just like a simple connection.
t b b b print bang1 send foo print bang3
receive foo print bang2
will print bang1 bang2 bang3
whatever the receiver position.
if you got 1 send and 2 receive , execution order of the receives is undefined.
with 2 send / 1 receive : 1 send is 1st received.
cheers c
Le 13/07/2015 22:39, rolfm@dds.nl a écrit :
hi list,
to not make a maze of a complicated patch i use quite often send/receive objects inside the patch.
triggered by the recent thread about execution order and depth-first, i'm starting to doubt the above mentioned habit.
in an much older thread it is said that: apart from the "right to left" rule for outlets (and inlets?) and the "depth first" rule, execution order in Pd is not defined.
does it mean that there's nothing to say/know about send/receive's?
for example:
when 2 different [send A]'s go to the same [receive A] will there be used a "first-in first-out" procedure?
[send]/[receive]'s inside a subpatch are they handled before [send]/[receive]'s which 'cross the border' of the subpatch?
any info about Pd's 'stack handling' is also appreciated.
rolf
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
- rolfm@dds.nl rolfm@dds.nl [2015-07-13 16:40]:
hi list,
to not make a maze of a complicated patch i use quite often send/receive objects inside the patch.
triggered by the recent thread about execution order and depth-first, i'm starting to doubt the above mentioned habit.
in an much older thread it is said that: apart from the "right to left" rule for outlets (and inlets?) and the "depth first" rule, execution order in Pd is not defined.
does it mean that there's nothing to say/know about send/receive's?
http://puredata.info/docs/tutorials/PdForMaxUsers#always-use-the-trigger-obj...
when 2 different [send A]'s go to the same [receive A] will there be used
a "first-in first-out" procedure?
yes, always.
(unless you deliberately use something such as a [pipe] or [delay] object in between, of course)
[send]/[receive]'s inside a subpatch are they handled before
[send]/[receive]'s which 'cross the border' of the subpatch?
no. the subpatch will not have any impact on the order of execution.
In general, it is bad practice to use a single send going to multiple receives - the order in which they are received should be considered undefined. You should avoid doing that if at all possible.
But in some cases, it is useful, such as sending the global BPM to different parts of your patch. In that case, you just have to be very careful that the patch doesn't depend on the order in which the different receives are triggered.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Peter P. peterparker@fastmail.com wrote:
- rolfm@dds.nl rolfm@dds.nl [2015-07-13 16:40]:
hi list,
to not make a maze of a complicated patch i use quite often send/receive objects inside the patch.
triggered by the recent thread about execution order and depth-first, i'm starting to doubt the above mentioned habit.
in an much older thread it is said that: apart from the "right to left" rule for outlets (and inlets?) and the "depth first" rule, execution order in Pd is not defined.
does it mean that there's nothing to say/know about send/receive's?
http://puredata.info/docs/tutorials/PdForMaxUsers#always-use-the-trigger-obj...
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:39:42PM +0200, rolfm@dds.nl wrote:
does it mean that there's nothing to say/know about send/receive's?
for example:
when 2 different [send A]'s go to the same [receive A] will there be used a "first-in first-out" procedure?
[send]/[receive]'s inside a subpatch are they handled before [send]/[receive]'s which 'cross the border' of the subpatch?
No, they aren't, see attachment. The "border" of a subpatch is invisible in this regard. To have a defined execution order (that doesn't rely on creation order) use direct connections at least where order matters.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
-
Cyrille Henry -
Frank Barknecht -
i go bananas -
Peter P. -
rolfm＠dds.nl