how about a single object named [blockinfo~} ? [blockparam~] ?
Chuck
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org wrote:
Hmm, while the idea of a single object is good, I think the object is clearly called "samplerate" so getting the rest of that info from it doesn't really make sense.
.hc
On May 23, 2008, at 9:48 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
Or, how about three extra outlets to samplerate~ (so as not to have to add more to the top-level namespace)
cheers Miller
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:07:18AM +0100, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On May 23, 2008, at 9:00 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I just had a thought, what about adding an outlet to [block~] that will output the block size as a float when [block~] is banged? I can't think of any other way to query what the current block size is, and it would be useful sometimes.
banging [switch~] allows you to do dsp processing on demand. since [block~] and [switch~] are so closely related (on the Pd side they are very similar (with [switch~] being a better [block~]); on the C side they are the basically same) i would suggest to do any additional overloading.
i agree however, that it would be nice to get the current blocksize, overlap and oversample from within Pd.
It seems that adding an outlet to block~/switch~ seems to be the most obvious interface for getting the data. Perhaps just a message then?
I'd personally prefer new objects:
[blocksize~] [overlap~] [oversampling~]
to match the existing:
[samplerate~]
Rationale:
You might want to get the blocksize etc in more than one place. It might be inconvenient to patch cables from the [block~]. Plus the reasons that IOhannes mentioned.
Thanks,
Claude
http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev