> didn't want to cause disturbance. please, this is no disturbance and I don't represent this list any more than you do, everything I say is also just my opinion and my two cents
> If we want to abstract from the implementation well, if we don't then maybe we should have 2 inputs/output for the Most and Least significant bits from 0-127, cause that is what the specification is... and the '0' point is 64 / 0 anything else is an abstraction cheers 2016-09-12 16:52 GMT-03:00 Giulio Moro <giuliom...@yahoo.it>: > > it is a "weird" inconsistent standard > I actually mean it is inconsistent with how the data is represented > according to the MIDI standard. > > > now i don't know if you're just pushing to make this point, when 3 > people already manifested that this sounds reasonable and intuitive as well. > > Signed integer surely does sound more intuitive than unsigned integer, I > agree. My point is, if we want to program for intuitiveness, then > normalized float is good (possibly with a different rescaling for the > positive part, so that -1 -> -8192 and 1 -> +8191, either way, it should > be clipped to range). > > If we want to abstract from the implementation (as both normalized float > and signed integer do), then I would advocate for the former, as it makes > more sense altogether. Going for the latter is, in my opinion, not much of > an improvement over the current situation and I would not bother, > ESPECIALLY if it is going to be a breaking change. But then, I only > recently subscribed to this mailing list, so I have no idea what practices > are already in place in the development of Pd, I was just sharing my > opinion on the subject, didn't want to cause disturbance. > > Best, > Giulio > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com> > *To:* Giulio Moro <giuliom...@yahoo.it> > *Cc:* Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu>; "pd-list@lists.iem.at" < > pd-list@lists.iem.at> > *Sent:* Monday, 12 September 2016, 20:34 > *Subject:* Re: [PD] bendin bug (?) > > > > 2016-09-12 16:14 GMT-03:00 Giulio Moro <giuliom...@yahoo.it>: > > > As far as intuitiveness is concerned, -1 to 0.999878 is the most intuitive > range for me. > > > You'll be glad to know that the update in cyclone will include also the -1 > to 0.999878 range for you in midiformat/midiparse. I didn't mention, but > besides -8192 to 8191 they also included this - but there's no 0-16383 > option though. > > > Just to make a point that intuitiveness is arbitrary. > > > now i don't know if you're just pushing to make this point, when 3 people > already manifested that this sounds reasonable and intuitive as well. > > > -8192 to 8191 sits somewhere in between, breaks free from the specs and > yet is not intuitive to use. > > > but this is widely used and I've seen it in different occasions. for > instance, it is actually even used in Pd's bendout... why? Cause it is > something that actually exists! Another example is that it was just > introduced in Max's midiformat/midiparse *instead* of the 0-16383 range. > I'm sorry but I have to disagree that it is a "weird" inconsistent > standard. It is actually the only standard I ever knew until I found these > issues. And it is widely used because it is in fact intuitive, 'coz '0' > means no pitch bend up or down... Now, ask a newbie what's the middle > point in the 0-16383 range? > > cheers > > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
