It would change some pretty major things in vanilla, too. For instance, [phasor~], [osc~], and [tabosc4~] all depend on a bit-manipulation trick to wrap phase, which won't work with doubles.
katja addressed this with Pd Double. See:http://www.katjaas.nl/doubleprecision/doubleprecision.html See the "benchmarks" section of that link. -Jonathan
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 11:05 AM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl@gmail.com> wrote:
It would change some pretty major things in vanilla, too. For instance, [phasor~], [osc~], and [tabosc4~] all depend on a bit-manipulation trick to wrap phase, which won't work with doubles. I'm not sure if the output is any different, but it does save the per-sample bounds check and is theoretically faster. On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list pd-list@lists.iem.at wrote:
we should have switched to doubles long ago.
According to katja, that would trigger a zombie apocalypse in external land. And the only way to tell the zombies from the survivors would be to... *gulp*... actually read external library code. Personally, I'd rather get eaten by a zombie than do that. -Jonathan
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 10:31 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at> wrote:
On 02/27/2016 09:55 AM, William Huston wrote:
I really wish Pd had a 32 bit integer data type for counters, and other places where integers are appropriate.
actually i strongly disagree: i think it is one of Pd's killer features to have a single numeric type.
the only problem is that the actually used numeric type (single precision floating point) is rather limited. we should have switched to doubles long ago.
gfmdsar IOhannes
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list