On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 13:12 -0600, Mike McGonagle wrote: > > > On Dec 20, 2007 10:41 AM, Russell Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > So, after going through my own mental exercise to analyze the > situation, I now > > don't think any changes should be made at all. > > > I agree with this. This is just one of the few (or more) things you > need to know about when dealing with PD. It even says it on the help > page for [until]... > > > I don't think I want the software to try and second guess what I want, > and if I construct an [until] that is an infinite loop, then so be > it... >
I agree, but it would be nice if there was a distinction between hanging a patch and hanging Pd. The user should at least have the opportunity to close the window that contains the infinitely looping [until], and keep Pd running. However, I don't think this would be possible without some architectural changes to Pd (like more extensive use of threading). Jamie -- www.postlude.co.uk _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
