[PD] s~ & r~ with block size other than 64?

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 22:54:02 CET 2016

2016-02-28 16:08 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>:

> On 02/27/2016 10:33 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > by the way, partconv~ is buggy, we should fix it... I emailed bsaylor a
> > couple of years ago and he said he didnt have time for it
> what's that bug?
> has it been reported in some public place? why not?

I contacted ben saylor in private in 2014, thing is that it needs to
receive a set message, otherwise it wont work with the specified array
given as first argument.

here's the response

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Saylor <bensaylor at fastmail.fm>
Date: 2014-09-26 22:20 GMT-03:00
Subject: Re: patconv~ bug
To: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>, Hans-Christoph Steiner <
hans at at.or.at>

Hi Alexandre,

I'm aware of the issue but don't have time to fix it myself, unfortunately.
Here's an explanation I wrote to someone else, and a workaround.

I think the reason the seemingly redundant "set" is required is that
> the table is empty when the patch is loaded, and so when partconv~ is
> created it initializes with an empty array. Because of the
> computation involved in preparing the impulse response, it only does
> it on creation and when sent a "set" message. The workaround is to
> populate the table with a loadbang - then, if the table doesn't
> change, you don't need a set message.
> One of these days, I will have to make partconv~ handle these kinds
> of things better and not crash.

All the best,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160228/ca4d7de4/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list