[PD] vline~ question
mpuckett at imusic1.ucsd.edu
Sun Jan 27 03:34:46 CET 2008
I thought about it again today and I agree, there's no fundamental need to
have it. On the other hand, if you happen to be using lots of vline~s for
scheduling breakpoint envelopes, there might be a big efficiency gain
having the vline~ object manage the timeouts itself. (The vline~ object
would still have to be dsingend to store multiple scheduled breakpoints in
case more than one fell within a DSP block.)
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:58:30AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
> > I think the question is, why have that book keeping available for
> > vline~? Are there any practical uses for it?
> > Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to just accept a list
> > like [0, 1 1000, 0.5 1000, 0 2000( where it starts at 0, goes to 1 in
> > 1000 seconds, then goes to .5 in 1000 seconds, then goes to 0 in 2000
> > seconds. Why even have the extra digit?
> i cannot follow you here at all.
> however, i would say that the 3rd digit is more or less useless (only
> there for convenience) because you can get the same behaviour with
> scheduled messages.
> [0, 1 1000 500(
> is the same as
> [t b b]
> | |
> [0( [del 500]
> | |
> | [1 1000(
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list