Probably it just doesn't work right yet. I haven't tried 17 yet :) The 64-element table bounds problem is longstanding, I hope to fix it someday.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:31:59PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
On 9/8/06, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
Where it says "reblocking only works between powers of two", does that mean that a subpatch inside a subpatch blocked at 100 could only be blocked at 25, 50, 100, 200, etc?
i guess this is true if you manage to run your main patch at a blocksize of "100" (or another "power-of-2" multiple of 100); since the main block is fixed to power-of-2 values itself, it turns out that your subpatches must have sizes of "64", "128", ... (at least i haven't yet found a way to run pd-0.40 with blocksizes != 2^n)
I see, that does seem to be the case. So maybe the wording in the release notes means that blocks will still operate if told !=2^n block sizes, but only at ==2^n block sizes. I note that sending "set 17" sets block size to 32, whereas v. 0.39-2 prints an error and leaves block size at 64.
I also just noticed that a 64-element array showing elements 0 to 63 shows the last one outside the graph, but it does so in 0.39-2 as well. Strange I never noticed.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list