On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 13:18 +0200, raul diaz wrote:
> Hi list!
>
> Thanks for your answers!
>
> I think arraysize is the best way to obtain table size in my case.
> I know as IOhannes said that I can use the length output from
> soundfiler, but I load a lot of samples at the same time in the same
> soundfiler, so it's difficult to get each size separately.
this is certainly not true. pd's execution order is very strict, so it
shouldn't cause any trouble at all to load several samples in 0 logical
time through the same [soundfiler] while keeping track of all sample
lengths. from pd's perspective, everything is processed sequentially,
even if for the user it looks like to happen at the same time. so
conceptually, there isn't actually no 'at the same time', so there is
also no need to wait until all samples are loaded and then ask each
array about its size.
roman
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
http://mail.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
