Unchucking has no effect?

Kassen · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject:

Hi, olejorgen!

Could you please re-post this code while turning HTML off? That's the top checkbox below the field where you enter your text, If you don't turn it off the board will get confused by all the triangular brackets and you end up with lines like " dac =<buf> now; " which I'm sure wasn't what you intended.

In the meantime here's a working chuck/unchuck example;

olejorgen · Joined: Apr 09, 2008 Posts: 2 Location: Norway

Done. Seems like I mixed up the order, thanks Smile

Kassen · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject:

Yes, you were disconnecting the dac from the buf, not the buf from the dac.

In ChucK signals flow like you read&write English; from left to right. Your code didn't generate a error because the dac can in fact be connected to modules, for example to make ChucK sample it's own output. Here the dac wasn't connected to any Ugen but that doesn't stop your from trying to unchuck it, that just doesn't do anything but it's not illegal either.

With that fix, one of my own samples and shorter durations (because my sample was just a few seconds) your code worked fine.

Stochastic · Joined: Feb 25, 2008 Posts: 20 Location: Vancouver

would it be a feature consideration for the VM to output a warning that the code is trying to unchuck a non-chucked set of modules? or would that generate too many warning messages for advanced codes?

Inventor · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:21 am Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:40 am Post subject:

Here you go;

Kassen · Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:46 am Post subject:

Also note that chucking a ugen to another ugen (or the dac) if it's already connected to it won't do anything. This means you need a second gain to square a signal (chucking it twice to a gain set to multiply won't do since the double connection is ignored) but mostly this is convenient. This means the "maybe" above doesn't need a check.