hi,
i'm struggling with the way Pd handles numbers bigger then 99.
i have an array with thousands of numbers, which i write to a file to
analyse them.
however, as soon as a number is bigger then 99 i get the abbreviated
notation and am loosing the lower digits.
in Pd i can make a bi
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:17 AM wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> i'm struggling with the way Pd handles numbers bigger then 99.
>
> i have an array with thousands of numbers, which i write to a file to analyse
> them.
>
> however, as soon as a number is bigger then 99 i get the abbreviated
> notation
If your numbers are integers, you can convert them to symbols with
[makefilename %d] and add them to a text file, e.g. with [text set].
If the numbers are floats, you can use [makefilename %f]. Unlike %g, the
%f specifier prevents the use of scientific notation. See also
https://stackoverflow.
there have been a few discussions around this last year (in which i was
involved).
1. its not about pd 64bit (that is liekly already running on your machine)! its
about pd double precision, which is possible to compile easily (as i found out,
being a noob)
2. regarding the makefilename approac
Thanks for stressing the differences between 64bit and double precision!
However, I think it's not about double precision, either. Single
precision only becomes an issue if you need more than 23 bits precision
(which is not the case here).
The actual issue is how Pd *prints* floating point nu
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Christof Ressi wrote:
>
> Thanks for stressing the differences between 64bit and double precision!
The confusion persists though, as double precision is also 64-bit. One
has 64-bit address bus width and the other has 64-bit data bus width.
'64-bit Pd' appears to re
One has 64-bit address bus width and the other has 64-bit data bus width.
"double precision" has nothing to do with the data bus width. It just
means that "t_float" and "t_sample" are defined as "double" instead of
"float".
So "single precision"/"double precision" and "32-bit"/"64-bit" are
re
