[PD] Send and receive execution order was Re: Zen Garden re-implementing the wheel in C++?

Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette at gmail.com
Sat Apr 17 20:53:12 CEST 2010

 > > Please anybody correct me if I am wrong, but I think _unless
 > > there are
 > > loops in the graph_ there is _always_ an order that ensures no added
 > > latency, and finding out that order is all what dsp-graph computing
 > > is
 > > about!!! I always thought Pd would take care of that....
 > > perhaps doesn't it??
 > no. if you want to ensure the order of execution, [...]

Well, it does for direct wired connections obviously.
So my error was to think that a [send~]-[receive~] pair was the same as 
an invisible wire.

Now the subpatch trick (btw thank you for pointing me to the 
documentation resources about it) doesn't help at all for [send~] and 
[receive~] does it? I mean it's applicable but if you can arrange the 
send and receive into subpatches that you have to connect physically, 
then you don't need the s~ and r~ in the first place...

So when you use send~s and receive~s, basically there's no way of 
enforcing a correct execution order?!?

Matteo Sisti Sette
matteosistisette at gmail.com

More information about the Pd-list mailing list