[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[sc-dev] SystemClock bug?

To: SuperCollider developers list <sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sc-dev] SystemClock bug?
From: nikolai collinsky <nikolaicollinsky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:03:46 +0000 (GMT)
In-reply-to: <f05111b0dbc15d87b01b7@[134.100.45.12]>
List-archive: <http://www.create.ucsb.edu/pipermail/sc-dev>
List-help: <mailto:sc-dev-request@create.ucsb.edu?subject=help>
List-id: SuperCollider developers list <sc-dev.create.ucsb.edu>
List-post: <mailto:sc-dev@create.ucsb.edu>
List-subscribe: <http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev>, <mailto:sc-dev-request@create.ucsb.edu?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev>, <mailto:sc-dev-request@create.ucsb.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: SuperCollider developers list <sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

//this crashes SC3- 

100.do({SystemClock.sched(4.0.rand,{1.0.rand.postln;})})

scheduling queue size restriction?

(can get round by converting absolute scheduling to
delta time scheduling to use less clocks but still,
would be nice to have safe scheduling
possibilities...)



________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [sc-dev] SystemClock bug?
  - From: Dave Watson
- Re: [sc-dev] SystemClock bug?
  - From: James Harkins

References:
- [sc-dev] Fwd: [sc-users] rrand [approve?]
  - From: Julian Rohrhuber

Prev by Date: [sc-dev] Fwd: [sc-users] rrand [approve?]
Next by Date: Re: [sc-dev] SystemClock bug?
Previous by thread: [sc-dev] Fwd: [sc-users] rrand [approve?]
Next by thread: Re: [sc-dev] SystemClock bug?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread