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 + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the last sample from the previous block.
So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
Am I right?
thanks
So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($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 + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the last sample from the previous block.
So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
Am I right?
thanks
Hi Alexandre,
I recall that I fixed this bug a while back so I am surprised that I see it again.
In any case your email is timely as I just started looking at the bugs and hope to be submitting new sources soon.
Would you care to be my alpha tester? If so, what environment are you on? (mac, linux, sorry I cannot deal with windows)
cheers, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($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 + $x[-1]) * 0.5]
will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the last sample from the previous block.
So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples.
Am I right?
thanks
sure, count me in for testing it, my pleasure ;)
I'm on a mac os - yosemite and mavericks
cheers
2015-09-08 21:22 GMT-03:00 Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu:
Hi Alexandre,
I recall that I fixed this bug a while back so I am surprised that I see it again.
In any case your email is timely as I just started looking at the bugs and hope to be submitting new sources soon.
Would you care to be my alpha tester? If so, what environment are you on? (mac, linux, sorry I cannot deal with windows)
cheers, Shahrokh
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($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
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
Shahrokh Yadegari