really? can't see how much more relevantly efficient it'd be, and it kinda
does check it already, hence the errors

cheers

2016-02-26 3:07 GMT-03:00 i go bananas <[email protected]>:

> I would assume it's also slightly more efficient that pd doesn't have to
> check the vector size when processing the s~ / r~ functions.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Reply via email to