<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/14/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jukka Akkanen</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Looks like .time is taken as the length of time in seconds for the<br>value to go from 0.0 to 1.0. Based on the ChucK manual, I, too, would<br>have expected this to be the desired time to go from the current<br>value to the target value. Care to report this as a bug, http://
<br><a href="http://wiki.cs.princeton.edu/index.php/ChucK/Bugs/Reports">wiki.cs.princeton.edu/index.php/ChucK/Bugs/Reports</a> seems to be the<br>place for that?</blockquote><div><br><br>I'd be delighted to report it "officially" but it just might be badly documented correct behaviour?
<br><br>What I wanted is admittedly totally different from what it's intended to do. I wanted a "free" interpolating glide. My plan was to feed it a .target in Hz, set time to something dependant on BPM and just feed it a new "target" every note, chuck
env.last() to osc.freq every few ms for some cheap thrills.<br></div><br>Well.... no cigar.<br><br>I think you are right about how it works; in that case "time" would define the slope of the ramp. That'd be valid if somewhat odd.
<br><br><br>So; the documentation is mistaken or the code has a problem.... Personally I suspect Envelope wasn't expected to have .target be set to something along the lines of 500 so it might be cool to talk about what it's supposed to do and how in ChucK. I'll submit the bug to the official page for reference and use a rather elaborate way of "manual" interpolation for now.