2016-02-28 16:08 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at:
On 02/27/2016 10:33 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
by the way, partconv~ is buggy, we should fix it... I emailed bsaylor a couple of years ago and he said he didnt have time for it
what's that bug? has it been reported in some public place? why not?
I contacted ben saylor in private in 2014, thing is that it needs to receive a set message, otherwise it wont work with the specified array given as first argument.
here's the response cheers
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ben Saylor bensaylor@fastmail.fm Date: 2014-09-26 22:20 GMT-03:00 Subject: Re: patconv~ bug To: Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com, Hans-Christoph Steiner < hans@at.or.at>
Hi Alexandre,
I'm aware of the issue but don't have time to fix it myself, unfortunately. Here's an explanation I wrote to someone else, and a workaround.
I think the reason the seemingly redundant "set" is required is that
the table is empty when the patch is loaded, and so when partconv~ is created it initializes with an empty array. Because of the computation involved in preparing the impulse response, it only does it on creation and when sent a "set" message. The workaround is to populate the table with a loadbang - then, if the table doesn't change, you don't need a set message.
One of these days, I will have to make partconv~ handle these kinds of things better and not crash.
All the best, Ben