Disclaimer: I don't feel too strongly about this because I realised my original calculation was wrong anyway, however...
If you think about it negative exponents require a completely > different algorithm that is discontinuous with the one for > positives. Instead of multiplying you divide n times. For sure, but we're talking about negative bases, additionally negative exponents are already handled correctly by [pow]. bien sur, it would be easy to add this. > the thing is, do we really want that? > having NaN's somewhere in your computation will have all the results > become NaN, including any signals. > NaN-signals don't sound good. There are many things I can do in Pd that don't sound good, I've bust my ears and headphones/speakers too many times to know that :) I would argue that yes (I personally) would want that. If the calculation is wrong, then it's my fault. Also, this is in reference to a message object that's being used for a graph calculation. Receiving '0' was confusing. the output is a number of the value NaN (which gets displayed as NaN, but > this doesn't mean it a symbol ,just like "1e-8" is not a symbol > either...usually) Good to know, thanks! Out of curiosity, are the workarounds suggested more of a result of the difficulty of extending the Pd core rather than the implications that such a change might have? Obviously [expr] is a good solution but still the fact that [pow] acts differently feels non-intuitive. Cheers, Joe On 22 April 2013 21:43, IOhannes zmölnig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/22/2013 04:07 PM, Joe White wrote: > >> Would it be possible >> to add this to [pow] as well? Something like for negative base values, >> non-integer exponent values would return NaN? >> > > bien sur, it would be easy to add this. > the thing is, do we really want that? > having NaN's somewhere in your computation will have all the results > become NaN, including any signals. > NaN-signals don't sound good. > > > >> Additionally for [pow] to output '0' seems wrong, because that is >> definitely not the answer. I've never seen NaN output elsewhere so I'm >> assuming [expr] outputs a symbol and not some Pd defined NaN type >> (maybe?). >> >> no. the output is a number of the value NaN (which gets displayed as > NaN, but this doesn't mean it a symbol ,just like "1e-8" is not a symbol > either...usually) > > fmgar > IOhannes > > > ______________________________**_________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/** > listinfo/pd-list <http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list> > -- Follow me on Twitter @diplojocus
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
