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/

Reply via email to