Dear list,
if this is stable, wouldn't it be a nice idea to propose it as an update to
> the expr~ family of objects? since it is basically an optimized clone?
basically it is an optimized clone, but we have to consider the
introduction of several (and heavy: llvm one for all) dependencies before
On 03/31/2018 05:10 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> 2018-03-31 12:04 GMT-03:00 mario buoninfante :
>
>> Hi Roman,
>>
>> you're absolutely right, in fact that's the way I'm doing. but I suppose
>> that having the possibility to directly set the object would allow to have
>> better performances
2018-03-31 12:04 GMT-03:00 mario buoninfante :
> Hi Roman,
>
> you're absolutely right, in fact that's the way I'm doing. but I suppose
> that having the possibility to directly set the object would allow to have
> better performances.
>
sure +1
___
Pd-
2018-03-31 10:18 GMT-03:00 mario buoninfante :
>
>
> do you guys think it would be useful to have it?
>
yes it would
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi Roman,
you're absolutely right, in fact that's the way I'm doing. but I suppose
that having the possibility to directly set the object would allow to
have better performances.
Imagine a situation where you have 10 [ctlin] objects in a patch and
then you implement the kind of filter we're
On Sam, 2018-03-31 at 14:18 +0100, mario buoninfante wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> is there any particular reason why on [ctlin] there are no inlets
> that
> allow to change MIDI channel and control number on the fly?
>
> do you guys think it would be useful to have it?
Probably, but when creating it
Hi all,
is there any particular reason why on [ctlin] there are no inlets that
allow to change MIDI channel and control number on the fly?
do you guys think it would be useful to have it?
cheers,
Mario
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSU
