2008/6/19 kevin <vacillates@gmail.com>:

I suppose I'll chime in my support for this functionality, as it makes sense, though it does seem like it'd be harder to implement.

Not by much, I think. This is the "essence" of Envelope, it comes from Ugen_stk.cpp, starts at line 6972;
=============================-
MY_FLOAT Envelope :: tick(void)
{
if (state) {
    if (target > value) {
      value += rate;
      if (value >= target) {
        value = target;
        state = 0;
      }
    }
    else {
      value -= rate;
      if (value <= target) {
        value = target;
        state = 0;
      }
    }
}
return value;
}
============

So; that has clauses for having reached the end already anyway, so what we simply could do would be;
=================
MY_FLOAT Envelope :: tick(void)
{
if (state) {
    if (target > value) {
      value += rate;
      if (value >= target) {
        value = target;
        state = 0;
        rate = 0;
      }
    }
    else {
      value -= rate;
      if (value <= target) {
        value = target;
        state = 0; //not sure we actually need this line?
        rate = 0;
      }
    }
}
return value;
}
=============
I think that would fly.

I am, BTW, not sure why there are separate "rate" and "state" variables... and I can't seem to find the getRate() one. Also; in ChucK .rate() will always be a non-negative value. Maybe it would be best to have .rate() (in ChucK) report a rate with the appropriate sign as we don't have access to .state() from ChucK.... of course in that case we could also add a little check and if rate == 0 immediately proceed to returning value, in the interest of saving CPU.

Yours,
Kas.