Andy Farnell wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand that Iohannes, the remark is about the behaviour
> you get if you don't understand and misuse [s~][r~]. It surprised
ah, ok sorry for the repetition...
> me that it accepted the instance and replaced the old one.
indeed it is not what i would have expe
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:57:23 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Thankyou Frank. Remember we talked about problems that happen
> >> using more than one [r~]. Was that to do with creation order?
> >> Or is that something that only affects [throw~][catch~]
Quoting Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Thankyou Frank. Remember we talked about problems that happen
>> using more than one [r~]. Was that to do with creation order?
>> Or is that something that only affects [throw~][catch~] pairs?
>>
>>
>
> Maybe it was just me misusing [s~], if you create m
Quoting Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:58:31 +0100
> Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hallo,
>> Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:04:52 +
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > > what is the difference between
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:41:07 +
Andy Farnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:58:31 +0100
> Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hallo,
> > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:04:52 +
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:58:31 +0100
Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo,
> Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:04:52 +
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > what is the difference between r~/s~ and throw~/catch~ ?
> >
> > [r~][s~] are one t
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:04:52 +
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > what is the difference between r~/s~ and throw~/catch~ ?
>
> [r~][s~] are one to one
To be correct: It's one to many.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:04:52 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:04:31AM +, Andy Farnell wrote:
> > The slight difference is for [s~][r~] vs signal connections the order
> > of creation can change things. It's been discussed before in the context of
> > delay/resonator
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
> I think connections are slightly faster, but that is negligible. the
> more important aspect is programming style/readability/layout/program
> flow, and in this respect connections are definitely preferable.
Not always. Well place
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:04:31AM +, Andy Farnell wrote:
> The slight difference is for [s~][r~] vs signal connections the order
> of creation can change things. It's been discussed before in the context of
> delay/resonator string models.
>
what is the difference between r~/s~ and throw~/ca
Well, it all comes down to style now if we've determined theres no speed
diff.
Right now I've been building my objects with both traditional inlets/outlets
as
well as send/recieve mirrors named on the object name, first creation arg
ala
Chris McCormick's s-abstractions.
So [rc-arp arp1] has a midi
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:31 -0500, marius schebella wrote:
> I think connections are slightly faster, but that is negligible. the
> more important aspect is programming style/readability/layout/program
> flow, and in this respect connections are definitely preferable. with
> send/receive you end
I think connections are slightly faster, but that is negligible. the
more important aspect is programming style/readability/layout/program
flow, and in this respect connections are definitely preferable. with
send/receive you end up with spaghetti code.
Maybe when working with a lot of abstracti
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:12:27 -0500
"Daniel Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 6:08 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Daniel Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > > What is "faster" in terms of patch loads and runtime performance, using
> > > regular conn
On Dec 18, 2007 6:08 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Daniel Wilcox wrote:
>
> > What is "faster" in terms of patch loads and runtime performance, using
> > regular connections or sends? I ask this as I have been developing
> > objects with lots of sends insid
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Daniel Wilcox wrote:
What is "faster" in terms of patch loads and runtime performance, using
regular connections or sends? I ask this as I have been developing
objects with lots of sends inside of them and I'm wondering if this has
any impact on patch performance ... even
What is "faster" in terms of patch loads and runtime performance, using
regular connections or sends?
I ask this as I have been developing objects with lots of sends inside of
them and I'm wondering if this
has any impact on patch performance ... even if I don't use more then half
of them? It see
17 matches
Mail list logo
