Hallo, Damian Stewart hat gesagt: // Damian Stewart wrote: > personally i find sends and receives to be a mixed blessing. on the one > hand they get rid of unnecessary patch cords, but on the other hand they > make it much less clear to see what's going on with the execution order. > (what happens to the execution order when you do a message send/receive, > anyway?
Nothing. The execution order is not affected by sends and receives. I didn't change that much actually: I only introduced three or four sends like for current position and for the new value, also I changed the backwards stop connections into a send "$0-stop". But of course it's confusing for you now as you've been into the old version a lot deeper that I was. I also replaced many fanning connections because they make me nervous. ;) I also left-aligned almost everything for clarity. Normally I like it if there are lots of verbosely named subpatches when dealing with a complicated algorithm, i.e.: [pd initialize] | [pd increment-timetag] | [pd send-new-x-value] | [pd loop-backwards-through-arrays] | [pd check-for-old-value] | [pd insert-sorted] | [pd output-median] I wanted to make the patch clearer by separating stuff into more subpatches like this, but then I broke it. :( Ciao -- Frank _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list