[PD] bendin bug (?)

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

> didn't want to cause disturbance.

please, this is no disturbance and I don't represent this list any more
than you do, everything I say is also just my opinion and my two cents

> If we want to abstract from the implementation

well, if we don't then maybe we should have 2 inputs/output for the Most
and Least significant bits from 0-127, cause that is what the specification
is... and the '0' point is 64 / 0

anything else is an abstraction

cheers

2016-09-12 16:52 GMT-03:00 Giulio Moro <giuliomoro at yahoo.it>:

> > it is a "weird" inconsistent standard
> I actually mean it is inconsistent with how the data is represented
> according to the MIDI standard.
>
> > now i don't know if you're just pushing to make this point, when 3
> people already manifested that this sounds reasonable and intuitive as well.
>
> Signed integer surely does sound more intuitive than unsigned integer, I
> agree. My point is, if we want to program for intuitiveness, then
> normalized float is good (possibly with a different rescaling for the
> positive part, so that -1 ->  -8192 and 1 -> +8191, either way, it should
> be clipped to range).
>
> If we want to abstract from the implementation (as both normalized float
> and signed integer do), then I would advocate for the former, as it makes
> more sense altogether. Going for the latter is, in my opinion, not much of
> an improvement over the current situation and I would not bother,
> ESPECIALLY if it is going to be a breaking change. But then, I only
> recently subscribed to this mailing list, so I have no idea what practices
> are already in place in the development of Pd, I was just sharing my
> opinion on the subject, didn't want to cause disturbance.
>
> Best,
> Giulio
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>
> *To:* Giulio Moro <giuliomoro at yahoo.it>
> *Cc:* Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu>; "pd-list at lists.iem.at" <
> pd-list at lists.iem.at>
> *Sent:* Monday, 12 September 2016, 20:34
> *Subject:* Re: [PD] bendin bug (?)
>
>
>
> 2016-09-12 16:14 GMT-03:00 Giulio Moro <giuliomoro at yahoo.it>:
>
>
> As far as intuitiveness is concerned, -1 to 0.999878 is the most intuitive
> range for me.
>
>
> You'll be glad to know that the update in cyclone will include also the -1
> to 0.999878 range for you in midiformat/midiparse. I didn't mention, but
> besides -8192 to 8191 they also included this - but there's no  0-16383
> option though.
>
>
> Just to make a point that intuitiveness is arbitrary.
>
>
> now i don't know if you're just pushing to make this point, when 3 people
> already manifested that this sounds reasonable and intuitive as well.
>
>
> -8192 to 8191 sits somewhere in between, breaks free from the specs and
> yet is not intuitive to use.
>
>
> but this is widely used and I've seen it in different occasions. for
> instance, it is actually even used in Pd's bendout... why? Cause it is
> something that actually exists! Another example is that it was just
> introduced in Max's midiformat/midiparse *instead* of the 0-16383 range.
> I'm sorry but I have to disagree that it is a "weird" inconsistent
> standard. It is actually the only standard I ever knew until I found these
> issues. And it is widely used because it is in fact intuitive, 'coz '0'
> means no pitch bend up or down...  Now, ask a newbie what's the middle
> point in the 0-16383 range?
>
> cheers
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160912/1ae8306b/attachment.html>