I thought about it again today and I agree, there's no fundamental need to have it. On the other hand, if you happen to be using lots of vline~s for scheduling breakpoint envelopes, there might be a big efficiency gain having the vline~ object manage the timeouts itself. (The vline~ object would still have to be dsingend to store multiple scheduled breakpoints in case more than one fell within a DSP block.)
cheers Miller On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:58:30AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Kyle Klipowicz wrote: > > I think the question is, why have that book keeping available for > > vline~? Are there any practical uses for it? > > > > Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't be better to just accept a list > > like [0, 1 1000, 0.5 1000, 0 2000( where it starts at 0, goes to 1 in > > 1000 seconds, then goes to .5 in 1000 seconds, then goes to 0 in 2000 > > seconds. Why even have the extra digit? > > i cannot follow you here at all. > however, i would say that the 3rd digit is more or less useless (only > there for convenience) because you can get the same behaviour with > scheduled messages. > e.g. > [0, 1 1000 500( > | > [vline~] > > is the same as > > [t b b] > | | > [0( [del 500] > | | > | [1 1000( > +-----+ > | > [vline~] > > mfg,dr > IOhannes > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list