there have been a few discussions around this last year (in which i was involved).
its not about pd 64bit (that is liekly already running on your machine)! its about pd double precision, which is possible to compile easily (as i found out, being a noob)
regarding the makefilename approach: be carefule, if you generate lots of numbers:
https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2020-10/128229.html
- (one of) the other discussions: Problem With Correct Numbers In Pd Double Precision
https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2020-09/128107.html
it ain´t easy…
Am 07.05.2021 um 16:33 schrieb Christof Ressi info@christofressi.com:
If your numbers are integers, you can convert them to symbols with [makefilename %d] and add them to a text file, e.g. with [text set].
If the numbers are floats, you can use [makefilename %f]. Unlike %g, the %f specifier prevents the use of scientific notation. See also https://stackoverflow.com/a/5913115/6063908.
Works for me (tm).
Christof
On 07.05.2021 16:15, rolfm@dds.nl wrote:
hi,
i'm struggling with the way Pd handles numbers bigger then 999999.
i have an array with thousands of numbers, which i write to a file to analyse them.
however, as soon as a number is bigger then 999999 i get the abbreviated notation and am loosing the lower digits.
in Pd i can make a big number showing all digits by transforming it into a symbol, e.g. with makefilename.
but a thus created text-file does not work in a spreadsheet.
probably there's a way to overcome this seemingly limitation, but i've not found it yet.
anybody with a hint?
rolf
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list