Hi Alexandre, (and all)
Attached is a pre Version 0.5 expr~.d_fat compiled on OSX 10.9.5 with some fixes. I have fixed a number of the bugs, which are listed on the attached modified pd patch Alexandre sent me. I am still working on the others, but I thought I send this intermediate version to you to test if you had the time, before I pass the sources to Miller.
I am not sure if I have picked the best way to fix the functions that were supposed to receive one argument, but were listed as needing two, or vice versa. My impetus was to fix and drop the erroneous version which would break any patch that has used them in the wrong format. I think it is better to break the patches and inform the author of the new change. Most likely, the original use did not behave as it should have any way, and it is better to fix the patch.
I would be happy to hear from any experiences.
best, Shahrokh
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu wrote:
Thanks Alexandre. I will be in touch soon with new objects.
best, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
sure, count me in for testing it, my pleasure ;)
I'm on a mac os - yosemite and mavericks
cheers
2015-09-08 21:22 GMT-03:00 Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu:
Hi Alexandre,
I recall that I fixed this bug a while back so I am surprised that I see it again.
In any case your email is timely as I just started looking at the bugs and hope to be submitting new sources soon.
Would you care to be my alpha tester? If so, what environment are you on? (mac, linux, sorry I cannot deal with windows)
cheers, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres < porres@gmail.com> wrote:
So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1] + $x[-2] + $x[-3]) * 0.25] by supressing the outlet number, it won't check back on previous block sample values.
but if you do this [fexpr~ ($x1 + $x1[-1] + $x1[-2] + $x1[-3]) * 0.25] it will!
check attached patch
Anyway, still seems like a bug to me one way or another that needs to be fixed. And, as long as we're on the subject, how's the work on the previous bug reports?
Thanks
2015-09-08 1:47 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
Hi Shahrokh and Pd list
I've been testing fexpr~ and it seems it won't get the previous samples from the previous block.
For example, a simple mean filter like this:
[fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the last sample from the previous block.
So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
Am I right?
thanks
really excited about the 0.5 version on the way :) thanks
will definitely try this and let you know
cheers
2015-11-06 14:50 GMT-02:00 Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu:
Hi Alexandre, (and all)
Attached is a pre Version 0.5 expr~.d_fat compiled on OSX 10.9.5 with some fixes. I have fixed a number of the bugs, which are listed on the attached modified pd patch Alexandre sent me. I am still working on the others, but I thought I send this intermediate version to you to test if you had the time, before I pass the sources to Miller.
I am not sure if I have picked the best way to fix the functions that were supposed to receive one argument, but were listed as needing two, or vice versa. My impetus was to fix and drop the erroneous version which would break any patch that has used them in the wrong format. I think it is better to break the patches and inform the author of the new change. Most likely, the original use did not behave as it should have any way, and it is better to fix the patch.
I would be happy to hear from any experiences.
best, Shahrokh
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu wrote:
Thanks Alexandre. I will be in touch soon with new objects.
best, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com
wrote:
sure, count me in for testing it, my pleasure ;)
I'm on a mac os - yosemite and mavericks
cheers
2015-09-08 21:22 GMT-03:00 Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu:
Hi Alexandre,
I recall that I fixed this bug a while back so I am surprised that I see it again.
In any case your email is timely as I just started looking at the bugs and hope to be submitting new sources soon.
Would you care to be my alpha tester? If so, what environment are you on? (mac, linux, sorry I cannot deal with windows)
cheers, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres < porres@gmail.com> wrote:
So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1] + $x[-2] + $x[-3]) * 0.25] by supressing the outlet number, it won't check back on previous block sample values.
but if you do this [fexpr~ ($x1 + $x1[-1] + $x1[-2] + $x1[-3]) * 0.25] it will!
check attached patch
Anyway, still seems like a bug to me one way or another that needs to be fixed. And, as long as we're on the subject, how's the work on the previous bug reports?
Thanks
2015-09-08 1:47 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
Hi Shahrokh and Pd list
I've been testing fexpr~ and it seems it won't get the previous samples from the previous block.
For example, a simple mean filter like this:
[fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the last sample from the previous block.
So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
Am I right?
thanks
-- Shahrokh Yadegari Professor of Composition and Sound Design, Theatre and Dance Department University of California, San Diego Director, Initiative for Digital Exploration of Arts and Science, (IDEAS) California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technologies (Calit2) Email: sdy@ucsd.edu Web: http://yadegari.org Tel: (858) 822-4113 Fax: (858) 534-1080
thanks for your effort! anyway, how to open the "expr~.d_fat" file on linux?
akntk
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu wrote:
Hi Alexandre, (and all)
Attached is a pre Version 0.5 expr~.d_fat compiled on OSX 10.9.5 with some fixes. I have fixed a number of the bugs, which are listed on the attached modified pd patch Alexandre sent me. I am still working on the others, but I thought I send this intermediate version to you to test if you had the time, before I pass the sources to Miller.
I am not sure if I have picked the best way to fix the functions that were supposed to receive one argument, but were listed as needing two, or vice versa. My impetus was to fix and drop the erroneous version which would break any patch that has used them in the wrong format. I think it is better to break the patches and inform the author of the new change. Most likely, the original use did not behave as it should have any way, and it is better to fix the patch.
I would be happy to hear from any experiences.
best, Shahrokh
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu wrote:
Thanks Alexandre. I will be in touch soon with new objects.
best, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com
wrote:
sure, count me in for testing it, my pleasure ;)
I'm on a mac os - yosemite and mavericks
cheers
2015-09-08 21:22 GMT-03:00 Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu:
Hi Alexandre,
I recall that I fixed this bug a while back so I am surprised that I see it again.
In any case your email is timely as I just started looking at the bugs and hope to be submitting new sources soon.
Would you care to be my alpha tester? If so, what environment are you on? (mac, linux, sorry I cannot deal with windows)
cheers, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres < porres@gmail.com> wrote:
So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1] + $x[-2] + $x[-3]) * 0.25] by supressing the outlet number, it won't check back on previous block sample values.
but if you do this [fexpr~ ($x1 + $x1[-1] + $x1[-2] + $x1[-3]) * 0.25] it will!
check attached patch
Anyway, still seems like a bug to me one way or another that needs to be fixed. And, as long as we're on the subject, how's the work on the previous bug reports?
Thanks
2015-09-08 1:47 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
Hi Shahrokh and Pd list
I've been testing fexpr~ and it seems it won't get the previous samples from the previous block.
For example, a simple mean filter like this:
[fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the last sample from the previous block.
So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
Am I right?
thanks
-- Shahrokh Yadegari Professor of Composition and Sound Design, Theatre and Dance Department University of California, San Diego Director, Initiative for Digital Exploration of Arts and Science, (IDEAS) California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technologies (Calit2) Email: sdy@ucsd.edu Web: http://yadegari.org Tel: (858) 822-4113 Fax: (858) 534-1080
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Sorry, the object is compiled for OS X and will not work on linux. I am close to sending out an alpha, in which I may either find a linux setup to compile, or attach the sources for somebody else to compile for linux. I will also need somebody to compile and test the object within Windows environment. Please let me know if anybody is interested.
best, Shahrokh
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Jonghyun Kim agitato816@gmail.com wrote:
thanks for your effort! anyway, how to open the "expr~.d_fat" file on linux?
akntk
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu wrote:
Hi Alexandre, (and all)
Attached is a pre Version 0.5 expr~.d_fat compiled on OSX 10.9.5 with some fixes. I have fixed a number of the bugs, which are listed on the attached modified pd patch Alexandre sent me. I am still working on the others, but I thought I send this intermediate version to you to test if you had the time, before I pass the sources to Miller.
I am not sure if I have picked the best way to fix the functions that were supposed to receive one argument, but were listed as needing two, or vice versa. My impetus was to fix and drop the erroneous version which would break any patch that has used them in the wrong format. I think it is better to break the patches and inform the author of the new change. Most likely, the original use did not behave as it should have any way, and it is better to fix the patch.
I would be happy to hear from any experiences.
best, Shahrokh
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu wrote:
Thanks Alexandre. I will be in touch soon with new objects.
best, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres < porres@gmail.com> wrote:
sure, count me in for testing it, my pleasure ;)
I'm on a mac os - yosemite and mavericks
cheers
2015-09-08 21:22 GMT-03:00 Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu:
Hi Alexandre,
I recall that I fixed this bug a while back so I am surprised that I see it again.
In any case your email is timely as I just started looking at the bugs and hope to be submitting new sources soon.
Would you care to be my alpha tester? If so, what environment are you on? (mac, linux, sorry I cannot deal with windows)
cheers, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres < porres@gmail.com> wrote:
So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1] + $x[-2] + $x[-3]) * 0.25] by supressing the outlet number, it won't check back on previous block sample values.
but if you do this [fexpr~ ($x1 + $x1[-1] + $x1[-2] + $x1[-3]) * 0.25] it will!
check attached patch
Anyway, still seems like a bug to me one way or another that needs to be fixed. And, as long as we're on the subject, how's the work on the previous bug reports?
Thanks
2015-09-08 1:47 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com:
> Hi Shahrokh and Pd list > > I've been testing fexpr~ and it seems it won't get the previous > samples from the previous block. > > For example, a simple mean filter like this: > > [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1]) * 0.5] > > will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't > get the last sample from the previous block. > > So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just > one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a > concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this > problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous > samples. > > Am I right? > > thanks >
-- Shahrokh Yadegari Professor of Composition and Sound Design, Theatre and Dance Department University of California, San Diego Director, Initiative for Digital Exploration of Arts and Science, (IDEAS) California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technologies (Calit2) Email: sdy@ucsd.edu Web: http://yadegari.org Tel: (858) 822-4113 Fax: (858) 534-1080
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
Jonghyun Kim -
Shahrokh Yadegari