[chuck-users] priorities for next release

[Kassen]

On 8/29/07, Martin Ahnelöv <operagasten at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You should be able to $ chuck + foo bar - 1 2 3 = 4 foobar. Nuff said.


Could you perhaps still say a little more? I don't understand this at all, I
fear.


On the same topic, you should be able to $ chuck -3, because it's a pain
> in the ass to forgett the space =)


Hmmmmmm. Not so sure, because "-3" is also a number.


Also, $ chuck foobar.ck shouldn't break a VM.


You are quite right, any time that can happen that's a serious bug.


Now, more language wise:
>
> a .cycledur on (at least) the oscillators. Sometimes you just want to
> tell the machine how long time a lfo's cycle should be, instead of
> having to do hard calculating =)


We have this already :-). What we need is better documentation on it.
It's called ".period()" for the oscilators and the type is duration.

It was new in 1.2.0.7 and got mentioned in the "wat's new?" file but the
manual hasn't caught up yet.
I like this one, it's a very logical extention to ChucK's emphasis on time
and timing.


And a dur => blackhole; would be neat, too. Ie, you forward the shred
> dur samples in time. That's isn't too processor-intense to calculate,
> right?


Could you give a example of what this would do? How would this be different
from "dur => now;"?

Yours,
Kas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20070829/1b586074/attachment.htm