[PD-dev] PD-cvs Digest, Vol 29, Issue 11

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Jul 12 17:55:03 CEST 2007


Martin Peach wrote:
>>
>> one solution might be to use negative delays: delaying objects, such as
>> [delay] and [pipe] just ignore negative values (so they behave the same
>> as when fed with "0"), but the user has the option to determine whether
>> the message arrived to late and can act accordingly (e.g. discard
>> messages that should have happened yesterday)
>>
>>   
> OK, I'll put in negative delays.

great.
and i forgot to mention, that you can always connect the 2nd outlet to a
[max 0] so you get the original behaviour.

>>   
> That's a difficult problem. What's the difference between zero and zero? 
> I mean how does one tag no delay as being different from a delay of zero 
> without adding another outlet?
> There's a problem with unpackOSC at the moment in that if no time tag is 
> received there is no output on the second outlet, so you have to 
> externally zero the delay line after every message.


that is _good_ news, as it allows one to detect the absence of a
timetag. (no message is a message too...)

one could also use "bang" as a more explicit indicator, but then one
would _have_ to acknowledge the type too.
(it's not such a good idea to send the bangs to the right inlet of
[del]; but then this would enforce people to really take care of the
timetags (if used at all), which is not necessarily a bad thing)

so i am happy with anything that allows me to distinguish between "now"
and "immediately".


another question:
in osc, timetags are per-bundle (not per message).
is the scheduling information sent to the outlet for each message or
only once for each bundle?


fgmas.dör
IOhannes




More information about the Pd-dev mailing list