[PD-dev] bang [block~] to query current blocksize

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On May 26, 2008, at 9:54 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 21:40 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>> Hallo,
>> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, for DSP state, that's global, so using a global receive symbol
>>> makes sense, IMHO.
>>
>> The problem is not, that the state is global, but that with the
>> send/receive approach there would only be a global way to access the
>> state, but no locally restricted way.
>>
>> Take for example [samplerate~]: The (global) samplerate also is a
>> global property, but with [samplerate~] I can access this information
>> locally, i.e. it will only be sent to the outlet of the [samplerate~]
>> object that gets a bang. Imagine if instead of [samplerate~] there  
>> was
>> only a global [s pd-samplerate] and [r pd-samplerate] pair available.
>> Everytime, you'd want to get the samplerate, you would also activate
>> all other places where you have a [r pd-samplerate]!
>>
>> Chuck's workaround of [spigot]ting all receivers of course is even
>> more of a kludge and may in fact be proof of a lack of needed
>> functionality.
>
> why not using an abstraction for global states in order to access them
> locally?
>
> [inlet] [receive pd]
> |      /
> [b ] [route dsp]
> |   /
> [f ]
> |
> [outlet]
>
> or am i missing the point here? (sorry, if so. i didn't read the full
> thread)
>
> personally, i don't see the main problem in the state being global,
> since turning global values in only locally accessible values is  
> simple.
> the major problem i have with the [r pd] approach is, that there is no
> way to know the state without having changed the state at least once,
> which is paradox, since if you deliberately change something, you  
> don't
> need to request it's current state anymore.

The one thing lacking there is the ability to actively query the  
state, rather than passively tracking it.

Personally, I don't see a problem with a global receive for a global  
state.  To me, I think that a dataflow program should be set up to  
respond to changes in state, so a change of state in a global thing  
should be reflected globally.  Anyone have an example of where this  
wouldn't make sense?

.hc



> roman
>
>
>
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________
> Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo!  
> Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick.    - 
David Zicarelli