The thing is that a higher precision in single precision will give you many float imprecision errors and it's also annoying.
I guess using %g is a good compromise for single precision in messages, objects (as arguments) and comments. Maybe being able to set with more versatility would be nice in an object like [print], or as a new parameter for the number boxes. Or I can try and create externals that deal with this for power users, I don't know... But at least a hardcoded higher precision makes sense in general for pd64. I don't know yet which one would be good and others here may know better. And I think that a highger precision by default would deal with your issue Giulio, right? cheers Em seg., 25 de nov. de 2024 às 19:53, Giulio Moro <giuliom...@yahoo.it> escreveu: > I encountered this issue recently when someone came on our forum claiming > something was wrong with their analog input signals, whereas these were > numbers printed by Pd in scientific notation format. They didn't realise > that and thought those were big voltage spikes in the analog signal. To > make things worse, the situation quickly escalated and they went to ChatGPT > which suggested to clip the input range to get rid of the weird prints > https://forum.bela.io/d/5315-noise-on-analog-inputs (...). > > On Bela, we deal with analog inputs for sensors, so small values close to > zero are pretty common when you put together electric noise and sampling > noise. Even if someone can parse them properly, it's pretty awkward to see, > so I was coincidentally looking for something very similar to Alexandre's > proposal. I concur it would be nice to increase the number of digits that > it is allowed to stay in the decimal notation, and/or make it user-settable. > > Best, > Giulio > > > Alexandre Torres Porres wrote on 25/11/2024 11:55: > > Hi, I was about to open an issue on github, but thought it was better to > start a discussion here instead. > > > > Pd uses the default settings for %g to display numbers in comments, > message boxes, number boxes and [print] (and some other stuff, but this is > what concerns me). The default precision is "6" (as in "%.6g"). > > > > I'm sure this probably has been discussed many times, but even for > single precision, this is not satisfactory and we can create numbers in Pd > that it can understand, but it can't save them. Let's leave that aside for > now, the thing is that I think this could really change and improve for > pd64, as such a precision really does seem quite restrictive to me in this > case. > > > > It should be easy to adapt the code and have a different precision for > each case, right? > > > > I can also think of a preference settings that the user can set himself. > > > > What do you think? > > > > cheers > > > > --- > > pd-dev@lists.iem.at - the Pd developers' mailinglist > > > https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-dev@lists.iem.at/message/X7ZDUTQONHW57TBNTT6KC3UTC65G775W/ > > >
--- pd-dev@lists.iem.at - the Pd developers' mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-dev@lists.iem.at/message/ITO6G5F5MVIXAWCMFQCPPCLKAV26MG4F/