[PD] So [bang~] can't "bang" in less than 64 blocksize, huh?
simonzwise at gmail.com
Mon Mar 16 12:11:04 CET 2015
On 16/03/15 03:41, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
> The relevant chapter that Miller cited for his book explains the ways in which
> this can be handled. Ideally that's all one needs.
> The problem is at the edge case where someone wants to synchronize control
> events with the signal graph below the constraint that the system block size of
> 64 imposes. For block size below 64, couldn't [bang~] have a conditional where
> it schedules more clock callbacks with the relevant timestamps?
> I don't think a use-case is needed to understand the issue, though several are
> probably needed to assess the efficacy of hacking [bang~]. My quick hypothesis
> is that in a language like ChucK where these constraints don't exist, the user
> is free to implement a prohibitively expensive algorithm before changing it to
> something more sensible. (Whereas in Pd, we have a high-latency asynchronous
> discussion about it.)
More information about the Pd-list