> yep - and in fact I need length to be correct, otherwise there's no easy way
to get it.

That's what I was hinting at :-)

I find the empty signal quite elegant. Only s_nchans and s_vec are 0, the rest stays intact. This makes sense conceptionally because s_nchans * s_length is still 0.

> sp[2] = signal_makemultichannels(sp[2], outchans);

I like this! I think the naming is very descriptive.

Christof

Am 25.01.2023 17:39 schrieb Miller Puckette via Pd-dev <pd-dev@lists.iem.at>:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 05:34:48PM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> conceptually, i like this; though i would suggest "channels=0; length=64"
> (or whatever).
>
yep - and in fact I need length to be correct, otherwise there's no easy way
to get it.

> > and instead of (for example)
> >     sp[2] = signal_swapforchans(sp[2], outchans);
> > you'd just write
> >     signal_setchans(sp[2], ouchans).
>
> hmm, wouldn't that modify the t_signal* struct that sp[2] points to,
> potentially breaking the reuse? (so it ought to be "signal_setchans(&sp[2],
> outchans)")
>
I _think_ it works just to pass sp[2] in place - it's a (t_signal *) and
all that's needed is to alter member element s_vec, s_nchans.

> and i find the "swapforchans" slightly confusing (which fo(u)r channels are
> being swapped? the actual swapping is done by re-assigning a new value to
> sp[2]).
> so how about:
>   sp[2] = signal_makemultichannels(sp[2], outchans);
>
so this would become moot.
>

> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev