It would change some pretty major things in vanilla, too. For instance, [phasor~], [osc~], and [tabosc4~] all depend on a bit-manipulation trick to wrap phase, which won't work with doubles. I'm not sure if the output is any different, but it does save the per-sample bounds check and is theoretically faster.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list < [email protected]> wrote: > > we should have switched to doubles long ago. > > According to katja, that would trigger a zombie apocalypse in external > land. > And the only way to tell the zombies from the survivors would be to... > *gulp*... > > actually read external library code. > > Personally, I'd rather get eaten by a zombie than do that. > > -Jonathan > > > > On Saturday, February 27, 2016 10:31 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On 02/27/2016 09:55 AM, William Huston wrote: > > I really wish Pd had a 32 bit integer data type for counters, and other > > places where integers are appropriate. > > actually i strongly disagree: i think it is one of Pd's killer features > to have a single numeric type. > > the only problem is that the actually used numeric type (single > precision floating point) is rather limited. > we should have switched to doubles long ago. > > gfmdsar > > IOhannes > > > _______________________________________________ > [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 > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
