2008/6/6 mike clemow <<a href="mailto:gelfmuse@gmail.com">gelfmuse@gmail.com</a>>:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Yeah, that's what I figured. It's okay, it was actually a dumb idea<br>
anyway. I'm creating micro-structures of wavelet grains by sporking a<br>
function that sequences the sporking of functions that run the<br>
wavelets. Both functions need to advance time and must be sporked (so<br>
they can be simultaneous). i wanted them to return a duration equal<br>
to the length that they ran. But if i do my job right i will either<br>
a) know ahead of time or, b) not care.<br>
<br>
</blockquote><div><br>You got it; this sounds like a perfectly healthy attitude towards sporking and shred-infrastructure. I wondered for a while why definitions for shreds to be sporked were functions as well because as you now see functions and shreds are quite different on some level. The nice thing is though that with them also being functions we can choose whether we want the function to run paralel or serial. That's quite nice and it may make sense on a musical level as well. In a way they are like straight repetition as compared to a canon.<br>
<br>Good question. Well, I *hope* it's a good question because a few months back I experimented with the same thing and tried to think of a use for sporked shreds returning data. In the end I couldn't but it was a interesting thought experiment and led to fun tests.<br>
</div></div><br>Cheers,<br>Kas.<br>