[PD] fexpr~ block limitations - bug

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 16:39:48 CET 2015


really excited about the 0.5 version on the way :) thanks

will definitely try this and let you know

cheers

2015-11-06 14:50 GMT-02:00 Shahrokh Yadegari <sdy at ucsd.edu>:

> Hi Alexandre, (and all)
>
> Attached is a pre Version 0.5 expr~.d_fat compiled on OSX 10.9.5 with some
> fixes.  I have fixed a number of the bugs, which are listed on the attached
> modified pd patch Alexandre sent me. I am still working on the others, but
> I thought I send this intermediate version to you to test if you had the
> time, before I pass the sources to Miller.
>
> I am not sure if I have picked the best way to fix the functions that were
> supposed to receive one argument, but were listed as needing two, or vice
> versa.  My impetus was to fix and drop the erroneous version which would
> break any patch that has used them in the wrong format. I think it is
> better to break the patches and inform the author of the new change. Most
> likely, the original use did not behave as it should have any way, and it
> is better to fix the patch.
>
> I would be happy to hear from any experiences.
>
> best,
> Shahrokh
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Shahrokh Yadegari <sdy at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Alexandre. I will be in touch soon with new objects.
>>
>> best,
>> Shahrokh
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> sure, count me in for testing it, my pleasure ;)
>>>
>>> I'm on a mac os - yosemite and mavericks
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> 2015-09-08 21:22 GMT-03:00 Shahrokh Yadegari <sdy at ucsd.edu>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Alexandre,
>>>>
>>>> I recall that I fixed this bug a while back so I am surprised that I
>>>> see it again.
>>>>
>>>> In any case your email is timely as I just started looking at the bugs
>>>> and hope to be submitting new sources soon.
>>>>
>>>> Would you care to be my alpha tester? If so, what environment are you
>>>> on? (mac, linux, sorry I cannot deal with windows)
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Shahrokh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <
>>>> porres at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way
>>>>> [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1] + $x[-2] + $x[-3]) *
>>>>> 0.25] by supressing the outlet number, it won't check back on previous
>>>>> block sample values.
>>>>>
>>>>> but if you do this [fexpr~ ($x1 + $x1[-1] + $x1[-2] + $x1[-3]) * 0.25]
>>>>> it will!
>>>>>
>>>>> check attached patch
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, still seems like a bug to me one way or another that needs to
>>>>> be fixed. And, as long as we're on the subject, how's the work on the
>>>>> previous bug reports?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-09-08 1:47 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shahrokh and Pd list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been testing fexpr~ and it seems it won't get the previous
>>>>>> samples from the previous block.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, a simple mean filter like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get
>>>>>> the last sample from the previous block.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one
>>>>>> sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern.
>>>>>> One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic
>>>>>> and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> --
> Shahrokh Yadegari
> Professor of Composition and Sound Design,
> Theatre and Dance Department
> University of California, San Diego
> Director, Initiative for Digital Exploration of Arts and Science, (IDEAS)
> California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technologies
> (Calit2)
> Email: sdy at ucsd.edu
> Web: http://yadegari.org
> Tel: (858) 822-4113
> Fax: (858) 534-1080
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20151107/83253a25/attachment.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list