Hi IOhannes
Interesting side-notes. Thanks!
Roman
On Fri, 2022-01-14 at 09:11 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> sidenote: of course we are not alone.
> take for example the most popular programming language¹ of the last
> few
> years:
> a boolean value ideally requires a single bit to be
Dear José
Thanks for the hint. I was indeed aware of this library and would also
use it if I'd hit a memory limit and would be dealing with sound files.
It seems like purpose is to allow to store specifically sound more
efficiently, no so much arbitrary byte-level data (though one could
easily
On 1/13/22 15:41, José de Abreu wrote:
Roman, maybe you could use iem16?
[...]
[table16] uses only 16bit (2bytes) to store the values, which is half of
the memory."
So maybe it is exactly what you need?
i don't really think so.
afaict, roman is mainly concerned about a *potential waste*
Roman, maybe you could use iem16?
https://git.iem.at/pd/iem16 says that it is "16bit storage for Pd"
looking at the helpfile of [table16] we read:
"[table16] stores 16bit values. The normal pd-tables ([table], array) store
the values as floating-points. While floating points are (often) more
I read
once in IRC that one value in a Pd-array requires not 4 bytes, but 8
bytes on 64-bit systems.
Yes. Pd's graphical arrays (and Pd's data structure arrays in general)
are implemented as a linear array of "words" (t_word). A "word" can hold
one of several possible types. It is implemented
Hi
Sometimes I stored byte data (lists of bytes) in arrays. IIRC, I read
once in IRC that one value in a Pd-array requires not 4 bytes, but 8
bytes on 64-bit systems. Since storing plain bytes seems not such an
uncommon use case for me, I wonder if it can be done more efficiently.
Not that I ever
