2015-09-24 9:53 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <[email protected]>: > If my last post felt like a repression, I deeply regret that! >
no worries ;) just had to bring it up. but you were calling other things a bug, that were no bugs in a technical > sense (how ms are calculated in overlapping subpatches, how the maximum > index for [vd~] is actual less than the buffer size, etc.). > (...) > I'm personally rather careful with calling something a bug because chances > are high that there's simply a technical reason I didn't consider or > couldn't understand. > Yeah, I see the way you think but I think quite differently and I still consider these things a "bug". I know there might be technical issues that explain why things happen. But when nothing tells me that when using an overlapped block that I have to adjust time and frequency for objects, I see that as a bug, cause I'm expecting the object to behave as it should, and it just doesn't, and then my patches don't work and it sucks. I have to ask the list why the heck something is not happening and why do I need workarounds... someone had to look deeply in the code and sort it out... Well, and instead of building workarounds in the patch, I know there's a way to "fix" this in the object (just divide by the overlap number automatically in the code, seems easier than explaining it somewhere in the help file of a block~) - it wouldn't be impossible to fix it. Regarding the maximum delay time. Well, help file says it can go up to the total length and it doesn't... so... bug detected. I'm sure there's a reason why it's happening, but I don't think its impossible to fix it and make it happen as well. but anyway, I get your view, but I'll just disagree :) not sure if we should discuss and try to change each other's minds. cheers
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
