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