[PD-dev] Synchronizing Branches
fbar at footils.org
Tue Apr 29 10:12:45 CEST 2003
Michael McGonagle hat gesagt: // Michael McGonagle wrote:
> I have written some code that sends messages to various branches of
> other processing code. Two of these branches rely on each other, and I
> also need to make sure that one branch has completely executed prior to
> the other passing beyond a certain point.
> Basically what I have done is to stick a 'delay 0' object in the
> "dependant" branch. Am I correct in that using this forces this branch
> to "postpone" itself, allowing the other branch to complete its code?
> This has been working for me, as I had hoped, but I was wondering if
> there is a better way to handle this.
First: Why didn't you just change the "one-two-three" triggers so that
the rightmost one sends "two" and the middle one sends "one"? I guess,
for analytical reasons, didn't you?
Then [delay 0] in theory should do just that: delay for no time, as if
it weren't there. It obviously doesn't do that. In my eyes this is
wrong and a bug. So I wouldn't rely on it for ordering of messages. It
sure is better to order with trigger-objects.
> I can see one problem with this if there is a dependancy of several
> branches. Short of having the code branches merge, is there some other
> way to achieve this? Are there such things as state flags or "semifores"
> in pd? (ie don't continue until "my-state" is true).
As I said: Why not order the branch at the root with the correct
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
More information about the Pd-dev