i think it's not so much a matter of arraysize being strictly _necessary_, it's just that when you are throwing these floats around to keep track of the array size yourself, it seems a little silly because you know that this information is readily available inside pd. pd isn't doing any extra work to keep track of the information arraysize is giving out, it's just sitting there, without a decent interface to access it from patch-space.
on the otherhand, people should probably get out of the habit of resizing arrays liberally, since it's a time consuming thing to do during performance ;)
pix.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:09:20 +0200 (CEST) guenter geiger geiger@xdv.org wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Krzysztof Czaja wrote:
hi Guenter, Miller, and all,
my vote goes for adding 'getsize <array-name>' message to soundfiler. The soundfiler outlet is used already just for that -- reporting array size. No need for a new object.
Yes, thats why I wanted to take a look at the implementation. In normal conditions the arraysize should be known. ... just add a [float] to store it should be enough. But you never know, there might be some situations
Guenter
Krzysztof
guenter geiger wrote: ...
I can at least include arraysize in the CVS version if it is really necessary, for the main distribution Miller has to decide.
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev