Re: [sc-dev] For a more tolerant PlayBuf

[Julian Rohrhuber <julian.rohrhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13.12.2013, at 00:55, Rohan Drape <rohan.drape@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> OK, I see, for now I'll just hardcode the warning.
> 
> Excellent idea!
> 
> The 'absent' signal may be a very subtle aspect of a
> complex texture, or it may happen fifteen minutes into
> an offline rendering...
> 
> Regards [1, 1, 1] * [1, 1.2] and:
> 
>> You wouldn't expect this to throw a warning.
> 
> That's because * is _defined_ as cyclic?
> 

Normally, UGens are also defined as cyclic:

a = [1, 2, 3];
SinOsc.ar(a, 0, [0.2, 0.1])

> This could guide the channel allocation rules for your
> patch?
> 
> ie. UGen:[1,2,3,4] & Buffer:[1,2] -> [(1,1),(2,2),(3,1),(4,2)] etc.

yes, that would be easy and nice.
The complementary case, however, isn't possible:

 UGen:[1,2] & Buffer:[1,2,3,4] -> [(1,1),(2,2),(1,3),(2,4)] etc.

Would this be an argument against cycling?


> 
> Drifting off-topic: of the adverb variants 'e' = 'error
> if not equal' is conspicuously missing?

an excellent idea.

> 
> Where equal length inputs _are_ required it's very
> useful to annotate it!
> 


_______________________________________________
sc-dev mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/