So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1] + $x[-2] + $x[-3]) * 0.25] by supressing the outlet number, it won't check back on previous block sample values.
but if you do this [fexpr~ ($x1 + $x1[-1] + $x1[-2] + $x1[-3]) * 0.25] it will!
check attached patch
Anyway, still seems like a bug to me one way or another that needs to be fixed. And, as long as we're on the subject, how's the work on the previous bug reports?
Thanks
2015-09-08 1:47 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
Hi Shahrokh and Pd list
I've been testing fexpr~ and it seems it won't get the previous samples from the previous block.
For example, a simple mean filter like this:
[fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the last sample from the previous block.
So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
Am I right?
thanks