[PD] sssad slowness

Frank Barknecht fbar at footils.org
Fri Jul 25 21:32:13 CEST 2008


thanks for your effort.

Enrique Erne hat gesagt: // Enrique Erne wrote:
> i had an idea about that. in the last version every sssad instance 
> stores the content. this was not on purpose but it could be used to do a 
> check on the event of saving. the loadband event is now exchanged and 
> the check is when the user does the save. one disadvantage is that there 
> is more sssad communication everytime a user saves. not sure if you want 
> to go that way.

That's an interesting idea. I don't think, the added communication
overhead would be that bad, but in my quick tests I found another
problem (which may be possible to solve):

Say you have a [sssad A] watching a numberbox, then you change it,
so that e.g. A = 100. If you then add another [sssad A] by duplicating
the first, it is initialised to A = 0. This second A = 0 will overwrite
the A = 100 if you press [set( 

See attachement.

With the older [sssad], the 100 will be kept and on "set" will
initialize the new A = 0 with A = 100. I think, that's the better
behaviour. Hm, tricky ... ;)

 Frank Barknecht                                     _ ______footils.org__
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reset-test.pd
Type: application/puredata
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20080725/93b5d03f/attachment.bin>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list