Re: [PD] problem with correct numbers in pd double precision

[Lucas Cordiviola]

If you want to print the numbers nicely to the console add [makefilename 
%f] :


[t b f]
  |
      [makefilename %f]
      |
      [print count]


Be aware of https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/812

:)

Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.

On 9/18/2020 6:12 PM, hans w. koch wrote:

hello,

its probably due to my lack of understanding the correct number 
representations, but here it goes anyway:


i compiled pd 51-2 double precision for mac 10.14.6
with this version i was hoping to do some maths on big numbers.
but already an increment of 1 on some moderatly big number gives me 
problems of representation.


i made a simple version of the problem as a patch.
to verify you have a working version of pd double, it contains a 
simple test.

and then an iterative addition +1 starting from 99.
i get this:
count: 99
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1.0e+06
count: 1.1e+06
count: 1.1e+06
count: 1.1e+06

the algorith terminates succesfully by a [select] after 10 iterations, 
but the results don´t show what i expect.
this to me indicates, that the internal numbers are correct, but they 
don´t “surface” as such.


i would be grateful for any pointers and possible workarounds, as the 
numbers i hope to be dealing with are potentially orders of magnitude 
higher.


thanks hans


___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list 





___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

[PD] problem with correct numbers in pd double precision

[hans w. koch]

hello,

its probably due to my lack of understanding the correct number 
representations, but here it goes anyway:

i compiled pd 51-2 double precision for mac 10.14.6
with this version i was hoping to do some maths on big numbers.
but already an increment of 1 on some moderatly big number gives me problems of 
representation.

i made a simple version of the problem as a patch.
to verify you have a working version of pd double, it contains a simple test.
and then an iterative addition +1 starting from 99.
i get this:
count: 99
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1e+06
count: 1.0e+06
count: 1.1e+06
count: 1.1e+06
count: 1.1e+06

the algorith terminates succesfully by a [select] after 10 iterations, but the 
results don´t show what i expect.
this to me indicates, that the internal numbers are correct, but they don´t 
“surface” as such.

i would be grateful for any pointers and possible workarounds, as the numbers i 
hope to be dealing with are potentially orders of magnitude higher.

thanks hans




pd_double_numberproblem.pd
Description: Binary data
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Advice on distributing pd-based software for apple

[Dan Wilcox]

Ranst aside, for now you can do "ad-hoc code signing" for free as we do with Pd 
starting in 0.51 for macOS 10.15+:

https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/blob/master/mac/osx-app.sh#L359 


Reference: 
https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/288291/what-are-the-restrictions-of-ad-hoc-code-signing
 


This may change in the future, but works for now. You can also look up a 
pd-list thread about 6 months ago where Roman was figuring out how to sign his 
re-package of Pd for netpd distribution.

This won't remove the "unidentified developer" warning but it should run, 
although I'm not sure how that mechanism transpires within the context of 
running things within Max. I would suggest having a second system to test this 
out other than the build system aka build, then copy to the other system and 
try running it.

> On Sep 18, 2020, at 6:41 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:54:42 -0700
> From: Brad Garton mailto:gar...@columbia.edu>>
> To: João Pais mailto:jmmmp...@gmail.com>>
> Cc: "pd-list@lists.iem.at "  >
> Subject: Re: [PD] Advice on distributing pd-based software for apple
> Message-ID:
>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> You can use a variant of these instructions:
> 
> http://sites.music.columbia.edu/brad/osx-windows-new-RTcmixes/annoying.html 
> 
> 
> to get around the STUPID ANNOYING STUPID OBNXIOUS Apple gatekeeper
> code-signing thing.
> 
> brad


Dan Wilcox
@danomatika 
danomatika.com 
robotcowboy.com 



___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Advice on distributing pd-based software for apple

[Brad Garton]

Yes -- each person has to do it to allow it to run on their system.

brad


On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:40 AM João Pais  wrote:

> that is interesting. But it means that each person has to do it in their
> system, correct? I can't do it after creating the package and then
> distribute it around?
>
> (for the people I'll send this, running a terminal command is much harder
> than clicking on the system settings)
>
>
> You can use a variant of these instructions:
>>
>>
>> http://sites.music.columbia.edu/brad/osx-windows-new-RTcmixes/annoying.html
>>
>> to get around the STUPID ANNOYING STUPID OBNXIOUS Apple gatekeeper
>> code-signing thing.
>>
>> brad
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:51 AM João Pais  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> I'm preparing a package based on Pd work, but I run into annoying
>>> problems with recent apple OSs, namely notarization and security. Things
>>> seem to work if the user commits to switching off all security protocols,
>>> but for people who don't know Pd, they might be squeamish about this.
>>> Therefore I wanted to ask a couple of questions to someone who might have
>>> experience in distributing pd-based patches.
>>>
>>> For clarity: the package is a max patch (for both runtime and standalone
>>> versions), with the Pd app and patches included in a supporting folder -
>>> running with the recent pd~ object. When done properly, the user won't even
>>> be aware that pd itself is running.
>>>
>>> - how can one avoid asking a user to allow safety access to Pd and its
>>> externals? And while at that, to the max standalone as well?
>>> - I'm myself a windows user, and don't have a mac - I can only get the
>>> standalone compiled when a friend grants me access to his computer. Which
>>> system do you advise to prepare a package? It works fine in 10.13, from
>>> 10.15 seems to be problematic.
>>> - I had a look at codesigning a package, but it seems that it's
>>> necessary to sign up as an apple developer and pay 100us a year, which I'm
>>> not willing to do. The package won't be going to any app store, it's just
>>> to distribute as a zip file for computers. Any way to circumvent this?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> jmmmp
>>> ___
>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>
>>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Advice on distributing pd-based software for apple

[João Pais]

that is interesting. But it means that each person has to do it in their
system, correct? I can't do it after creating the package and then
distribute it around?

(for the people I'll send this, running a terminal command is much harder
than clicking on the system settings)


You can use a variant of these instructions:
>
> http://sites.music.columbia.edu/brad/osx-windows-new-RTcmixes/annoying.html
>
> to get around the STUPID ANNOYING STUPID OBNXIOUS Apple gatekeeper
> code-signing thing.
>
> brad
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:51 AM João Pais  wrote:
>
>> Hi list,
>>
>> I'm preparing a package based on Pd work, but I run into annoying
>> problems with recent apple OSs, namely notarization and security. Things
>> seem to work if the user commits to switching off all security protocols,
>> but for people who don't know Pd, they might be squeamish about this.
>> Therefore I wanted to ask a couple of questions to someone who might have
>> experience in distributing pd-based patches.
>>
>> For clarity: the package is a max patch (for both runtime and standalone
>> versions), with the Pd app and patches included in a supporting folder -
>> running with the recent pd~ object. When done properly, the user won't even
>> be aware that pd itself is running.
>>
>> - how can one avoid asking a user to allow safety access to Pd and its
>> externals? And while at that, to the max standalone as well?
>> - I'm myself a windows user, and don't have a mac - I can only get the
>> standalone compiled when a friend grants me access to his computer. Which
>> system do you advise to prepare a package? It works fine in 10.13, from
>> 10.15 seems to be problematic.
>> - I had a look at codesigning a package, but it seems that it's necessary
>> to sign up as an apple developer and pay 100us a year, which I'm not
>> willing to do. The package won't be going to any app store, it's just to
>> distribute as a zip file for computers. Any way to circumvent this?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> jmmmp
>> ___
>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] Advice on distributing pd-based software for apple

[Brad Garton]

You can use a variant of these instructions:

http://sites.music.columbia.edu/brad/osx-windows-new-RTcmixes/annoying.html

to get around the STUPID ANNOYING STUPID OBNXIOUS Apple gatekeeper
code-signing thing.

brad


On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:51 AM João Pais  wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> I'm preparing a package based on Pd work, but I run into annoying problems
> with recent apple OSs, namely notarization and security. Things seem to
> work if the user commits to switching off all security protocols, but for
> people who don't know Pd, they might be squeamish about this. Therefore I
> wanted to ask a couple of questions to someone who might have experience in
> distributing pd-based patches.
>
> For clarity: the package is a max patch (for both runtime and standalone
> versions), with the Pd app and patches included in a supporting folder -
> running with the recent pd~ object. When done properly, the user won't even
> be aware that pd itself is running.
>
> - how can one avoid asking a user to allow safety access to Pd and its
> externals? And while at that, to the max standalone as well?
> - I'm myself a windows user, and don't have a mac - I can only get the
> standalone compiled when a friend grants me access to his computer. Which
> system do you advise to prepare a package? It works fine in 10.13, from
> 10.15 seems to be problematic.
> - I had a look at codesigning a package, but it seems that it's necessary
> to sign up as an apple developer and pay 100us a year, which I'm not
> willing to do. The package won't be going to any app store, it's just to
> distribute as a zip file for computers. Any way to circumvent this?
>
> Best,
>
> jmmmp
> ___
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

[PD] Advice on distributing pd-based software for apple

[João Pais]

Hi list,

I'm preparing a package based on Pd work, but I run into annoying problems
with recent apple OSs, namely notarization and security. Things seem to
work if the user commits to switching off all security protocols, but for
people who don't know Pd, they might be squeamish about this. Therefore I
wanted to ask a couple of questions to someone who might have experience in
distributing pd-based patches.

For clarity: the package is a max patch (for both runtime and standalone
versions), with the Pd app and patches included in a supporting folder -
running with the recent pd~ object. When done properly, the user won't even
be aware that pd itself is running.

- how can one avoid asking a user to allow safety access to Pd and its
externals? And while at that, to the max standalone as well?
- I'm myself a windows user, and don't have a mac - I can only get the
standalone compiled when a friend grants me access to his computer. Which
system do you advise to prepare a package? It works fine in 10.13, from
10.15 seems to be problematic.
- I had a look at codesigning a package, but it seems that it's necessary
to sign up as an apple developer and pay 100us a year, which I'm not
willing to do. The package won't be going to any app store, it's just to
distribute as a zip file for computers. Any way to circumvent this?

Best,

jmmmp
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list