[PD] Question about object categorizing

[PSPunch]

Mathieu, Jonathan and Joao,


Thanks for your replies.

I think your words sum up to give me an idea of the current situation 
with the mentioned docs.


If by any chance someone can explain the historical background, I think 
I and others as well would be interested in learning..


--
David Shimamoto



> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, PSPunch wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps I should have made clear that I was not sure how [print~] and 
>> [samphold~] would even be considered to go under filters.
> 
> No, no, you were clear enough, I just meant that those aren't the only 
> things that don't fit where they've been put, and that the problem is 
> much bigger than that. (e.g. afaik, in Signal Theory, [rpole~] is not a 
> "filter", though it still is peripherally related to filters; otoh there 
> might be other Signal Theorists using different definitions or namings).
> 
>> Is [samphold~] also often used in building filters?
> 
> I don't know... but it isn't "filtering" because what you can get out of 
> it can have a richer spectrum than the original (left-inlet input), and 
> it isn't "linear" either, or "quad", or whatever... it doesn't fit the 
> filter theory much... and I don't see how using it anywhere inside an 
> abstraction can not prevent the abstraction to be a linear filter or 
> quad filter...!
> 
> According to my num.analysis book, [samphold~] would be called a 
> "piecewise-constant interpolator", with the warning that "constant 
> interpolator" is somewhat a contradiction of terms; and that you get to 
> choose the pieces (using right-inlet). Whereas [adc~], for example, is 
> also a piecewise-constant interpolator (in hardware or emulated), but 
> all the pieces are identical in "width" (duration), that is, 1 sample.
> 
>  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
> | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801