[PD] pd~ clock

Miller Puckette msp at ucsd.edu
Sat Apr 4 06:45:11 CEST 2015

I think it's possible but would require lots of changes - perhaps to the point
that it would be more appropriate to make an entirely separate object.
It wouldn't make sense to send audio back and forth, and the synchronization
is most of the complexity in pd~.

Meanwhile, if we're just piping Pd messages (as in netsend/netreceive) into
and out of a sub-process, that might be useful with other programs besides


On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 05:23:26PM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
> Hi list,
> Would it be possible to add a flag to [pd~] to keep the parent instance from
> blocking?
> It'd be like starting another Pd instance manually and using
> netsend/netreceive to communicate between them, except modular and portable.
> Gem + audio comes to mind.  But also offloading heavy (and often
> inefficient) work into the other process.  For example, if you know that
> generating some pitch data takes an average of ten seconds, but you've got a
> minute before the section of the piece where you need the data.
> -Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

More information about the Pd-list mailing list