Hi !

[t b b]

is a littlet bit not about that. I ment One Bang parsed to one side, than Next one - to other ..

so the thing with

[bang( | [tgl] | [sel 0]_____ |
[nmbrbox\ [nmbrbox\

propsed by Tim , - is the solution, and I used such a thing, but I thought that the readymade object is more stable - thatswhy i recoded everything with [TogEdge] ..

is the [sel]-chain more stable in fast algorithms ?

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:13:22 +0200 от Marian Weger mail@marianweger.com:

if you need it as fast as possible, [t b b b ...] does it.

cheers, marian

Am 20.06.12 02:11, schrieb Фывапр Олджэвич:

...

Hi, list !

I use [TogEdge] object in several patches for deviding bangs - first to right , next - to left .. and again ... and so on ..

But I noticed, that this object is not stable .. so if the process is fast - it can make mistakes and alteres the pairs of bangs ..

No help in manuals and reference about the thing ..

Can someone advice any object or short and very stable algorythm for the purpose ?

Thank you very much !

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

---

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

2012/6/20 Marian Weger mail@marianweger.com

Am 20.06.12 16:43, schrieb Фывапр Олджэвич:

so the thing with

...

[bang( | [tgl] | [sel 0]_____ |
[nmbrbox\ [nmbrbox\

propsed by Tim , - is the solution, and I used such a thing, but I thought that the readymade object is more stable - thatswhy i recoded everything with [TogEdge] ..

is the [sel]-chain more stable in fast algorithms ?

i don't know [TogEdge], but the "[sel]-chain solution" is completely stable. replacing externals by built-in functions would also be more future-proof.

perhaps, it would be even more stable if no gui object is involved. the toggle could be replaced by a simple counter with modulo.

don't know if it matters if the tgl isn't visible, but i guess you could also use: [i ]X[== 0]

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

On 06/20/2012 05:29 PM, tim vets wrote:

don't know if it matters if the tgl isn't visible, but i guess you could also use: [i ]X[== 0]

i'd suggest using a modulo-counter, which allows you to have more than 2 outlets.

gfmnasrd IOhannes

----- Original Message -----

From: Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [PD] [TogEdge] - anything else ?

Hi, On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 05:29:49PM +0200, tim vets wrote:

...

don't know if it matters if the tgl isn't visible, but i guess you could also use: [i ]X[== 0]

That would be *much* faster than using the [tgl]. You can squeeze a little bit more performance out of it if you use [f ] instead of [i ].

In Pd-l2ork with the [tgl] _not_ visible, it's 5-10% slower than [f]x[== 0] There are plenty of circumstances-- say, where you're only sending a few sporadic messages to the object chain in question-- where the difference between using an invisible [tgl] and [f]x[== 0] is insignificant.  (For example, to trigger on/off messages for depressing/releasing a piano key where it's unlikely you'd send more than one message per block.)  Both take very little time to execute.

If it's visible, then of course it's much faster to use [f]x[== 0].

Also, note that if you want the same functionality as [tgl] you need to use the outlet for [== 0] and not [f].

-Jonathan

Ciao

Frank

---

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