Hallo,
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I was just looking at Pd 0.42.5's [wrap]. It doesn't use arguments like
zexy's [wrap]. Since each has different behavior, it seems like a good
time to look at how [wrap] should handle its upper and lower limits.
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Steffen Juul wrote:
What is the largest integer not exceeding 0 (zero)?
I've asked before, but I'll still like to know.
It's 0.
You surely mean another question instead, but I can't guess, as there
would be several possibilities.
With pd floats:
smallest number 0
On 19/03/2009, at 17.24, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Steffen Juul wrote:
What is the largest integer not exceeding 0 (zero)?
I've asked before, but I'll still like to know.
It's 0.
Ok. It's just that when one send the 0 signal to a wrap~ instance it
returns 1. (wrap~
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Steffen Juul wrote:
Ok. It's just that when one send the 0 signal to a wrap~ instance it
returns 1. (wrap~ of a negative integer is also 1.)
I'd call it a bug. I'd expect wrap~ to never ever output 1, if only to be
consistent with how [mod] works.
_ _ __ ___ _
