Agreed, "drip" is awful. I had one included and then removed it because I hated the name, and it's not that much to hook an iterator to a table reader (and you have the indices to work with in whatever way you need as well).
Speaking of which, on my machine [array get] is faster than plain [tabread]. It can get lists of about 30 from an array about as fast as [tabread] can get single floats. Weird, but cool. M On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:39 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/05/2015 05:39 PM, Christof Ressi wrote: > > You're right that it's easy to implement as an abstraction but I was > rather thinking about execution speed. > > I guess a fictional object like [array drip] that would just iterate > through the array using a C loop would be the fastest possible method. > > yes. > well no: the fastest possible way would probably be hand-optimized > assembler. > > > I don't see how you could even get close to that with abstractions, > especially when using only vanilla objects. > > i don't think that in practice this would matter though. > an [array-drip]¹ implementation in Pd-vanilla should be O(n). > an [array drip] implementation in C should be O(n). > > sure, the abstraction implementation will perform worse by a (constant) > factor but the complexity stays the same which is the important part. > > i assume that the cases where you do need that extra speed boost are > rather seldom, and do not warrant an extra built-in object. > > > gfamrds > IOhannes > > ¹ it always causes me pain to see the name "drip" used so widely. > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
