[expr pow($f1,$f2)] or [expr~ pow($v1,$f2)] or [expr~ pow($v1,$v2)] etc. I don't know why you consider this an omission? JP
Andy Farnell wrote: > Yes. Please don't take this the wrong way Derek, I sincerely appreciate > the suggestion. > > Everything can be done with [expr~], so why don't we just rename Pd > to [expr~]? :) > > Seriously, raising one number to a power is an essential, fundamental > operation > Is there any plausible excuse for its omission from core Pd? > > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:53:00 +0200 > Derek Holzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Can the job be done with [expr~]? >> >> d. >> >> Andy Farnell wrote: >> >>> Did I read that Cyclone is to be incorporated into vanilla Pd? >>> >>> Having discovered too late that [pow~] is not part of vanilla >>> I am about to remove the constraint of using vanilla Pd for >>> the synthetic sound design book since it is incomplete without >>> basic mathematical operators. >>> >>> andy >>> >>> >> -- >> derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista >> ---Oblique Strategy # 190: >> "You can only make one dot at a time" >> > > > _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list