On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 05:34:48PM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > conceptually, i like this; though i would suggest "channels=0; length=64" > (or whatever). > yep - and in fact I need length to be correct, otherwise there's no easy way to get it.
> > and instead of (for example) > > sp[2] = signal_swapforchans(sp[2], outchans); > > you'd just write > > signal_setchans(sp[2], ouchans). > > hmm, wouldn't that modify the t_signal* struct that sp[2] points to, > potentially breaking the reuse? (so it ought to be "signal_setchans(&sp[2], > outchans)") > I _think_ it works just to pass sp[2] in place - it's a (t_signal *) and all that's needed is to alter member element s_vec, s_nchans. > and i find the "swapforchans" slightly confusing (which fo(u)r channels are > being swapped? the actual swapping is done by re-assigning a new value to > sp[2]). > so how about: > sp[2] = signal_makemultichannels(sp[2], outchans); > so this would become moot. > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
