So, as it seems, I just found that there's an issue with the way [fexpr~] abbreviates the formulas and the way it behaves.
If you use it like this [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1] + $x[-2] + $x[-3]) * 0.25] by supressing the outlet number, it won't check back on previous block sample values. but if you do this [fexpr~ ($x1 + $x1[-1] + $x1[-2] + $x1[-3]) * 0.25] it will! check attached patch Anyway, still seems like a bug to me one way or another that needs to be fixed. And, as long as we're on the subject, how's the work on the previous bug reports? Thanks 2015-09-08 1:47 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com>: > Hi Shahrokh and Pd list > > I've been testing fexpr~ and it seems it won't get the previous samples > from the previous block. > > For example, a simple mean filter like this: > > [fexpr~ ($x + $x[-1]) * 0.5] > > will not work for the first sample of the block, because it won't get the > last sample from the previous block. > > So, I know that in practice it doesn't compromise much, it's just one > sample, but in an 16 point average filter this becomes more of a concern. > One way or another, even for just one sample, I consider this problematic > and a bug, as it should always be able to address previous samples. > > Am I right? > > thanks >
fexpr.pd
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
