[PD] timing

[Mike Moser-Booth]

On 12/23/10 8:51 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 08:10 -0500, Mike Moser-Booth wrote:
>> [bang~], [edge~], and [threshold~] I've noticed for sure are like this.
>> I don't know about [vline~] since I use it to avoid having to change the
>> block size. :-)
> I happily repeat myself:
> There is no need to adjust the block size when using [vline~].
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.
> As Dietrich already pointed out, for some reason it stops working as
> expected when using a blocksize<  64. I don't why this is and I suspect
> it to be a bug.
I don't know, either. I initially just suspected it was because [vline~] 
still starts outputting its vector at 64 sample boundaries. The attached 
patch seems to indicate it's a little weirder than that.

I don't understand Pd's code enough to say if it's just reiterating or 
illustrating Mathieu's point.

.mmb
> Roman
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: less_than_64_block.pd
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20101223/ddc2fc47/attachment.txt>