Hi Tim,
I'm hoping to get it to a point where it won't change much by the time 0.39 is stable... judging from past experience, that might be another 3 months or so.
I'm now worried that, having unified garrays and arrays-in-data, we might need an entirely different buffering scheme for handling 8-, 16- and 32-bit arrays, especially once the 64 bit version of Pd comes into wider use. But also, 32-bit arrays are probably overkill for buffering images. I'm hoping to experiment with unifying the "tilde" stuff with image I/O this summer, which will bring this question to a head.
cheers Miller
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:58:11PM +0200, Tim Blechmann wrote:
hi miller,
since i have to rewrite the garray locks once again, can you estimate, when you will finish the implementation of the t_garrays? once again it's easier to rewrite them than porting ... it's similar for thomas grill's garray_update functions ... i'd suggest we try to meet on irc during the next few days (probably evening for me, morning for you :) to discuss if and how we can handle this ... i'd like to improve the threaded soundfiler soon, but without knowing what will happen to the t_garrays in future, its probably only a waste of my time ...
usually, sitting at my computer i'm logged into the #dataflow irc channel, so it would be nice if you could try to contact me there ...
thanks ... tim
-- mailto:TimBlechmann@gmx.de ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
latest mp3: kMW.mp3 http://mattin.org/mp3.html
latest cd: Goh Lee Kwang & Tim Blechmann: Drone http://www.geocities.com/gohleekwangtimblechmannduo/
After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say "I want to see the manager." William S. Burroughs