Hi, Some examples on papers 2004, like this one, http://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/publications/on-the-fly_nime2004.pdf use things like: 100::ms +=> now; I don't understand exactly the meaning of that, but I think it should be the same as: 100::ms => now; Is that notation depreciated? Because that line is crashing ChucK, this simple program: //---------------------- <<< "now" >>>; 1::second +=> now; //---------------------- Gives a segmentation fault message (on Linux at least). Thanks for your help, Juan-Pablo
Hi Juan-Pablo!
use things like: 100::ms +=> now;
I don't understand exactly the meaning of that, but I think it should be the same as: 100::ms => now;
That's exactly right. In fact, 100::ms +=> now is the formal, more semantically "correct" syntax, and 100::ms is a "shorthand".
Is that notation depreciated? Because that line is crashing ChucK, this simple program: //---------------------- <<< "now" >>>; 1::second +=> now; //----------------------
That would be a bug alright! I repro'ed on windows and os x, and have tracked down the problem to incorrect emission of instructions for +=> now. It's now fixed in CVS. I wonder how long that has been broken... Apparently no one actually uses +=> now, huh huh. Best, Ge!
participants (2)
-
Ge Wang -
Juan-Pablo Caceres