well, I guess I pretty much only use notein/out so I don't have a lot of patches with bend info so IOhannes would be right in that regard. I think keeping this inconsisent behavior in the current existing objects would reinforce this behavior in future patches and then when this topic comes up again x years later there's even more reason to not break backwards compat since there'd be many more patches using these objects.
I do like the idea of new objects IF the old ones gradually get phased out. I think it'd be confusing to new users (and old users) if there's two pairs of objects in existence that pretty much do the same thing with slight differences. Plus, I like the minimality/sleekness of Pd and having two very similar objects kinda gunks it up and adds (although admittedly a very minimal) added footprint. In terms of the actual scaling, I think I'd prefer the ints rather than the floats scaled to [-1, 1). I suppose it's more safe to downscale from ints rather than upscale from floats? Is there enough precision in a 32-bit float to store someting like 1./8192? I'm reading you can have up to 9 digits of precision in the mantissa and 8192 being a power of 2 helps... admittedly I've been kinda fuzzy on these things... Derek On Sep 12, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > > 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