[PD] variable receive objects?

[Ivica Ico Bukvic]

On 05/27/2012 05:35 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
> What if the send/receive property was handled via clock_delay(0); ? If 
> I understand the underlying mechanism correctly, this would put the 
> changing of the receive at the end of the current working queue and/or 
> the beginning of the next one. Either way, the process that had to 
> take place would've either already taken place or would happen after 
> the change was done. Again, all this is assuming I understand how the 
> clock_delay(0); works. This would generate a bit of an out-of-sequence 
> delay (in terms of order of execution), but if that solves the crash, 
> it would be probably a trade-off worth tolerating. Perhaps adding a 
> second outlet that signals that the receive has been reset (e.g. via 
> bang) would allow to sync the rest of the operations... All that said, 
> this is awful close to being a hack rather than a solution.
>
Never mind. Just had a look at pd_bind/unbind code. This makes me wonder 
what if all bindings/unbindings were handled as lists? Would this 
potentially break anything (other than having to modify bind/unbind 
mechanism)? Does anything else depend on 2-member list vs. 1-member 
pointer in terms of bindings? I suspect there would be some cpu impact 
on having it implemented this way, but not that much.

-- 
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A
Composition, Music Technology
Director, DISIS Interactive Sound&  Intermedia Studio
Director, L2Ork Linux Laptop Orchestra
Head, ICAT Integrative Performance Studio
Virginia Tech
Department of Music
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0240
(540) 231-6139
(540) 231-5034 (fax)
disis.music.vt.edu
l2ork.music.vt.edu
ico.bukvic.net