[PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.40 test 03 released

[Miller Puckette]

Probably it just doesn't work right yet.  I haven't tried 17 yet :)
The 64-element table bounds problem is longstanding, I hope to fix
it someday.

cheers
Miller


On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:31:59PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/8/06, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
> >Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> >>
> >> Where it says "reblocking only works between powers of two", does that
> >> mean that a subpatch inside a subpatch blocked at 100 could only be
> >> blocked at 25, 50, 100, 200, etc?
> >>
> >
> >i guess this is true if you manage to run your main patch at a blocksize
> > of "100" (or another "power-of-2" multiple of 100);
> >since the main block is fixed to power-of-2 values itself, it turns out
> >that your subpatches must have sizes of "64", "128", ...
> >(at least i haven't yet found a way to run pd-0.40 with blocksizes != 2^n)
> >
> 
> I see, that does seem to be the case.  So maybe the wording in the
> release notes means that blocks will still operate if told !=2^n block
> sizes, but only at ==2^n block sizes.  I note that sending "set 17"
> sets block size to 32, whereas v. 0.39-2 prints an error and leaves
> block size at 64.
> 
> I also just noticed that a 64-element array showing elements 0 to 63
> shows the last one outside the graph, but it does so in 0.39-2 as
> well.  Strange I never noticed.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list