sure, I'm aware of how to do it, and I prefer delays. But I was just really wondering if there was a good reason for it, maybe hoping to a day that comes and allows it :)

cheers

2016-02-26 0:38 GMT-03:00 Claude Heiland-Allen <claude@mathr.co.uk>:
On 26/02/16 03:21, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
howdy, is there any particularly good reason why [s~]/[r~] must run at only
64 block sizes?

if the issue is that they may have conflicting/different sizes between
them, why not give the same error as you get now for blocks other than 64?

"receive~ x: vector size mismatch
sigsend x: unexpected vector size"

It'd be really convenient for feedback loops

 if you want something that works right now, tabsend~ and tabreceive~ don't have any restriction about table size must be equal to block size must be equal to 64

see attached example of a single self-modulating fm oscillator with single sample feedback (block~ 1)


Claude
--
http://mathr.co.uk


_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list