[PD] operator/spigot problem - action repeats unintentional

pix pix at test.at
Wed Aug 18 04:52:24 CEST 2004

yeah, it's sad to see this suddenly coming back into the pd vernacular. 

where are people learning this? sure you can deduce it experimentally, but if
it's written down somewhere, there isn't so much documentation for pd that it
wouldn't be hard to track down instances of this being suggested,  and delete
(or burn) them ;) 

it would be great if multiple connections from a point were actually evaluated
in separate threads so that execution order was also undefined in practice, and
maybe even beneficial (only on an smp machine, probably) to give up in instances
where it doesn't matter to the end result. although determining when this is
safe could be pretty daunting for a newbie.

but, the most pedagogical approach would probably just be to have pd flag
multiple connections from a non-signal output as an error (that mentions the
trigger object). 

are there other cases i'm not thinking of?


Quoting Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org>:

> Hallo,
> Christian Klotz hat gesagt: // Christian Klotz wrote:
> > ... ok, I found the prob. Probably the basic newbie thing - the wrong 
> > sequence of connection. thank you anyway
> No, please, it's not the sequence or order of connections. This still
> will be undefined, although it will seem to work for now. Please use
> triggers everywhere the order of execution matters. triggers are very
> important and common that's why they can be shortened to "t". They are
> as important as "f" or "bang".
> Ciao
> -- 
>  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list

This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

More information about the Pd-list mailing list