[PD] Trigger question

[adam johnson]

>and i was only saying that just because something is implemented in
>such-and-such way should be of no concern.

A feature not existing because of the difficulty of adding it would be one
possible answer to my question, so I checked the code before coming here
and it turned out to be the expected for loop.

>you still have to come up with an example where it gets so ugly it's
>hard to bear.

Why? I never said it is hard to bear, I said it was easy enough to work
around and implied that being able to break out of trigger would make it
neater and more readable, and at times it would. Most things in life would
probably be unbearable if we waited until things got difficult to bear
before even asking why.

>what are the chances that while you clean up the patches so they are
>presentable you discover that whatever you thought you needed a
>stoppable trigger evaporates?

It is in cleaning this patch that the question arose, but I never said I
needed it, I did not request a feature. I plainly stated that I suspected
the fault was with my understanding and not pd. Most languages give you
simple ways to break out of a sequence of events, but pd seems to treat it
as jumping off a cliff. As I said in my first post, I am asking why, not
how to do this, just trying to understand the logic of pd so I can use it
better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20210317/7c7be776/attachment.htm>