Hey, perfection is often a minor step forward! I would simply say that there is no difference for constant p, but in the time-varying case there is a new one-sample delay preventing bit-for-bit compatibility.
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 12:18 PM Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Julius, > > On 11/25, Julius Smith wrote: > > > > I see that I am missing out by not being on Discord! > > I think that all the technical questions/discussions should be moved > to the faudiostream mailing lists, in this case I would be happy to > forget about discord ;) > > > I like the changes but see that the ones depending on p are not exactly > > equivalent when p is time-varying. > > Yes, and I even tried to document this in the changelog. > > I _think_ this can't make a real harm because (I think) it is hardly > possible to predict what does period/pulse do if 'p' changes even at > control rate. > > But since both you and Dario have some concerns (thank you both!) - > lets forget this change. > > > In general I vote for elegance and optimality over exact equivalence, > > although such changes should be called out in the release notes. > > Well... Again, these changes are sooooo trivial and minor... Plus I > simply do not know how to document the change in behaviour. So lets > forget it. > > Thank you! > > Oleg. > > -- "Anything that can be automated should optionally be"
_______________________________________________ Faudiostream-users mailing list Faudiostream-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users
