2016-02-28 16:08 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <[email protected]>: > On 02/27/2016 10:33 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > > by the way, partconv~ is buggy, we should fix it... I emailed bsaylor a > > couple of years ago and he said he didnt have time for it > > what's that bug? > has it been reported in some public place? why not? >
I contacted ben saylor in private in 2014, thing is that it needs to receive a set message, otherwise it wont work with the specified array given as first argument. here's the response cheers ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ben Saylor <[email protected]> Date: 2014-09-26 22:20 GMT-03:00 Subject: Re: patconv~ bug To: Alexandre Torres Porres <[email protected]>, Hans-Christoph Steiner < [email protected]> Hi Alexandre, I'm aware of the issue but don't have time to fix it myself, unfortunately. Here's an explanation I wrote to someone else, and a workaround. I think the reason the seemingly redundant "set" is required is that > the table is empty when the patch is loaded, and so when partconv~ is > created it initializes with an empty array. Because of the > computation involved in preparing the impulse response, it only does > it on creation and when sent a "set" message. The workaround is to > populate the table with a loadbang - then, if the table doesn't > change, you don't need a set message. > > One of these days, I will have to make partconv~ handle these kinds > of things better and not crash. > All the best, Ben
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
