Agreed, "drip" is awful. I had one included and then removed it because I hated the name, and it's not that much to hook an iterator to a table reader (and you have the indices to work with in whatever way you need as well).
Speaking of which, on my machine [array get] is faster than plain [tabread]. It can get lists of about 30 from an array about as fast as [tabread] can get single floats. Weird, but cool.
M
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:39 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 10/05/2015 05:39 PM, Christof Ressi wrote:
You're right that it's easy to implement as an abstraction but I was
rather thinking about execution speed.
I guess a fictional object like [array drip] that would just iterate
through the array using a C loop would be the fastest possible method.
yes. well no: the fastest possible way would probably be hand-optimized assembler.
I don't see how you could even get close to that with abstractions,
especially when using only vanilla objects.
i don't think that in practice this would matter though. an [array-drip]¹ implementation in Pd-vanilla should be O(n). an [array drip] implementation in C should be O(n).
sure, the abstraction implementation will perform worse by a (constant) factor but the complexity stays the same which is the important part.
i assume that the cases where you do need that extra speed boost are rather seldom, and do not warrant an extra built-in object.
gfamrds IOhannes
¹ it always causes me pain to see the name "drip" used so widely.
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list