Mark Rages wrote:
> This site says it's a "long": http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/wave.htm
> This site says it's a "ulong": http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tech/aboutiff.htm
Wonderful isn't it :-).
> Unsigned makes more sense, considering it's a byte count and would
> never be negative.
>
> I've C
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Looks ok to me, but have you tested this with other software that
> reads/writes wave files?
Have a look at the sndfile-info program that is distributed as
part of libnsdifle. If there is anything wrong with the file
you have generated, the output of that program will ma
Mark Rages wrote:
> The RIFF chunk size (used by the Python wave library) is 2GB, because
> the length is read as a signed 32-bit integer.
>
> The attached patch to chunk.py raises the limit to 4GB by using a
> signed integer.
>
> Is this correct?
The original Microsoft specification listed the
On 7/6/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks ok to me, but have you tested this with other software that
> reads/writes wave files?
It appears to work, but I haven't done enough testing to be confident.
> You seem to be speculating about the format where you should be
> reading
Looks ok to me, but have you tested this with other software that
reads/writes wave files?
You seem to be speculating about the format where you should be
reading the reference documentation for this file format (alas, I
can't help you find it -- you can Google for it as well as I can :).
Also, p
The RIFF chunk size (used by the Python wave library) is 2GB, because
the length is read as a signed 32-bit integer.
The attached patch to chunk.py raises the limit to 4GB by using a
signed integer.
Is this correct?
Is there a more general solution to 32-bit addressing limitation in
wave files?
