[chuck-dev] segmentation fault on function call

Kassen signal.automatique at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 18:50:14 EST 2013

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:22:15PM -0600, Michael Heuer wrote:
> Yes, odd.
> That pattern is my best attempt to make classes/chugens/chubgraphs
> look more UGen-ly, in that you can use value => foo notation and
> f.foo(value) notation.  Typically in my use cases there are side
> effects in the function call in addition to setting the value of the
> field, so just doing value => f._f in the example above would not be
> sufficient.

Yes got it. In a way this is a inconsistency;
3 => my_gain.gain; //works
3 => my_class_instance.funny(); //has to be done like that.

I agree with you that this is inconsistent to the point where it might
bother us. I'd go as far as claiming that the "=>" operator is already
so overloaded that the only way to make sure ChucK will stay
consistent is to also allow for user-defined further overloading. I
can see why serious CS people might hide under the nearest furniture
over this idea, but I'm sticking to it.

> Thanks.  If you're not breaking ChucK or blowing up a channel on your
> mixer occasionally, you're not trying hard enough.  :)

IMHO mixer channels on mixers beyond the "bargain" level should not
blow either, at least not when fed signals somewhat similar to
reasonable audio ones. Mistakes in code and patching can and will
happen. We expect error handlers and mixers to deal with those; I
expect the pre-fader listen function to tell me when I patched
something wrong *before* I open the fader and risk damaging a rack of
amps, stack of speakers and potentially the ears of a few hundred
people; that's what the mixer is for, aside from mixing and routing.
Same thing with a error-handler. Error-handlers should be able to take
abuse, that is what they are there for.

Before we are at that level we clearly need to go through this phase
where any advanced ChucK project will yield bug-reports and we need
the kind of ChucKist like yourself who'll file them. :-)


More information about the chuck-dev mailing list