[chuck-users] Question regarding Sample level timing.

[Mike McGonagle]

If I could make a suggestion and have a footnote added to the
documentation mentioning this action about setting next, and that it
will actually have the value offset by 1 sample. While this makes
perfect sense, it might seem a little odd when unfamiliar with this.

Mike

On 2/6/06, Ge Wang <gewang at cs.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mike!
>
> > impulse i => blackhole;
> >
> > fun void doit() {
> >       while(true) {
> >               1.0 => i.next;
> >               100::ms => now;
> >       }
> > }
> >
> > now + 1::second => time later;
> >
> > spork ~ doit();
> >
> > while(now < later) {
> >       i.last() => float val;
> >       if (val != 0.0) {
> >               <<< now, i.last() >>>;
> >       }
> >       1::samp => now;
> > }
>
> Interesting.  There should be exactly 1 sample
> of offset, not 2, since chucking to i.next sets
> the next sample, which isn't detected by .last()
> until after time=1.0, when the sample is actually
> generated.
>
> I looked into this and tracked down the "bug"
> that added one extra samp's offset to .last.
> This has been fixed and committed to CVS, and
> will be in 1.2.0.5.  There should be only 1 samp
> of offset now.  Thanks for reporting this!
>
> Best,
> Ge!
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>


--
Help the Environment, Plant a Bush back in Texas!