[PD] What exactly is a "stack overflow" ?
padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk
Wed Dec 19 22:26:16 CET 2007
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:57:12 -0600
"Charles Henry" <czhenry at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/07, Frank Barknecht <fbar at footils.org> wrote:
> > I think, that now, that the "negative numbers" bug of [until] where
> > negative numbers acted like a bang, is fixed in the next Pd, maybe we
> > should tell beginners that they can send a number into Pd when they
> > are unsure if their patch is stopping [until] correctly. Maybe we
> > should even *preach* to send numbers instead of a bang into [until] in
> > general? If you use a large enough number, it's "almost the same" as a
> > bang except that it will stop by itself at some point.
> I seem to be tuning in a little late, in this discussion, but if it's
> a bad problem, couldn't you change the method of until to use only
No, that's the point. I said the same (similar) thing and IOhannes put me right.
Until is the only conditional in Pd we have (unless you construct your own
messages with feedback arrangement) that gives a deferred conditional after
executing at least once, just like DO-WHILE or REPEAT-UNTIL. If you constrain
it with numbers then it's logically a FOR(range) construct. I know there's
no situation where you actually want an infinite number of bangs, but where
are you going to draw the line?
The thing is not the logical behaviour of [until] but how to make it safer,
because it is potentially very nasty. I've lost work to it more than once.
> > Ciao
> > --
> > Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
> > _______________________________________________
> > PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Use the source
More information about the Pd-list