Hi All,

In the csound5 cvs I noticed John ffitch's checkin of new busi and buso 
opcodes for reading/writing to a bus, and the note in bus.c references 
an email from may 6th, which I'm assuming is referencing this design 
(for those who might not have access to this email or want to spend the 
time to look it up):

           buso       a1, kn    ;; write a1 to a-output #kn
    ar     busi       kn        ;; read ar from a-input #kn
           buso       k1, kn    ;; write k1 to k-output #kn
    kr     busi       kn        ;; read kr from k-input #kn


So, what impact does this have on using these opcodes?  Are these now the recommended opcodes to use for inter-instrument communication, replacing zak opcodes?  In what cases (if any) would one want to use zak versus bus?  

Thanks,
steven

If they are what I have requested for a whole not, they are not for 
inter-instrument communication, but for orch/host communication, most 
particularly for automation, external GUIs, motion detectors, audio side-chains, 
etc.

Richard Dobson

steven yi wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> In the csound5 cvs I noticed John ffitch's checkin of new busi and buso 
> opcodes for reading/writing to a bus, and the note in bus.c references 
> an email from may 6th, which I'm assuming is referencing this design 
> (for those who might not have access to this email or want to spend the 
> time to look it up):
> 
>           buso       a1, kn    ;; write a1 to a-output #kn
>    ar     busi       kn        ;; read ar from a-input #kn
>           buso       k1, kn    ;; write k1 to k-output #kn
>    kr     busi       kn        ;; read kr from k-input #kn
> 
> 
> So, what impact does this have on using these opcodes?  Are these now 
> the recommended opcodes to use for inter-instrument communication, 
> replacing zak opcodes?  In what cases (if any) would one want to use zak 
> versus bus? 
> Thanks,
> steven
> 
> 
> 

??!!??: never write before drinking morning tea: that meant to say "for a while 
now".

Richard Dobson wrote:

> If they are what I have requested for a whole not, they are not for 

Sometime I can get to hate computers.  I wrote these opcode while on
holiday, sitting in the sun after breakfast, and then queued up a long
email to explain what they were.  The e-mail seems to have vanished
from my machine, and I suspect that the message has gone for good.

So, attempting to reconstruct.... in email on Thu, 6 May 2004 09:31:16
+0100 I suggested a model for the IO bus long talked of.  Michael said
on Thu, 6 May 2004 09:45:27 -0400 that is seemed OK but my model was
too restrictive.  Others made other suggestions which to me clouded
the simple idea.  So I decided that the only think was to just do it,
commit when I got home and make the announcement at the same time.

The only change to the original is that the code allows for arbitrary
number of each bus (there are 4 families), and I had to add to the API
stuff without consultation, for which I apologise -- if it is the
wrong code it can just come out.

I am sure I explained more, but having just done a first pass through
3000 emails my mind is a little numb.

==John ff
 
>>>>> "steven" == steven yi  writes:

 steven> Hi All,
 steven> In the csound5 cvs I noticed John ffitch's checkin of new busi and buso 
 steven> opcodes for reading/writing to a bus, and the note in bus.c references 
 steven> an email from may 6th, which I'm assuming is referencing this design 
 steven> (for those who might not have access to this email or want to spend the 
 steven> time to look it up):

 steven>            buso       a1, kn    ;; write a1 to a-output #kn
 steven>     ar     busi       kn        ;; read ar from a-input #kn
 steven>            buso       k1, kn    ;; write k1 to k-output #kn
 steven>     kr     busi       kn        ;; read kr from k-input #kn


 steven> So, what impact does this have on using these opcodes?  Are
 steven> these now the recommended opcodes to use for inter-instrument
 steven> communication, replacing zak opcodes?  In what cases (if any)
 steven> would one want to use zak versus bus?   

No; zak is for opcode->opcode communications.  These are for
Csound<->application

Yes they could be combined but I think that would lead to more
confusion

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the info.  For some reason I thought there was a proposal of 
some kind to use the bus to also do inter-instrument communication in 
addition to the host communication.  It seems that technically these 
opcodes could do the job just fine.  But anyways... better not to think 
about those possibilities and just use as intended. =)

Thanks!
steven


Richard Dobson wrote:

> If they are what I have requested for a whole not, they are not for 
> inter-instrument communication, but for orch/host communication, most 
> particularly for automation, external GUIs, motion detectors, audio 
> side-chains, etc.
>
> Richard Dobson