[PD] What exactly is a "stack overflow" ?

Mike McGonagle mjmogo at gmail.com
Thu Dec 20 21:00:41 CET 2007

On Dec 20, 2007 1:32 PM, Charles Henry <czhenry at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/20/07, Mike McGonagle <mjmogo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with this. This is just one of the few (or more) things you need
> to
> > know about when dealing with PD. It even says it on the help page for
> > [until]...
> >
> > I don't think I want the software to try and second guess what I want,
> and
> > if I construct an [until] that is an infinite loop, then so be it...
> The only problem I see with it is a contrast with other programming &
> development environments.  If you create a problem in your code, you
> shouldn't be able to crash the development environment.  You halt the
> process, make changes, and re-compile.

Well, that is all fine and dandy, but how many
other development environments are REALTIME processors? I would love to see
Eclipse present the same sort of REALTIME environment, and NOT have it crash
when a user wants to do something like this.

The real power in this sort of thing is that YOU CAN do anything you want
with it, and in order to keep it general enough AND REALTIME, things like
this will happen.

> And Pd patching is different from this.  I'd say it warrants some
> consideration whether there is a means to allow Pd to make errors
> without crashing or becoming unresponsive.

And to do this, how much of the realtime stuff would get impaired? There are
going to be trade offs in any configuration, and I think the current
implementation of [until] is correct in allowing the user to cut off their
own legs...

Besides, we all need a coffee break now and then, and a reboot makes those
things possible...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20071220/e1aaa44f/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list