You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently the mix-output frequency is tracked as float64.
There is debate whether a "sample rate" is always an integer. I could make an argument for using int instead:
Assuming the mixing frequency will be:
greater than zero
in the hundreds of thousands, at the largest.
But perhaps it's better to leave it as-is, a float64, because it does function nominally at present (if for whatever reason it is desirable to specify an extremely precise velocity of samples-per-second)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
charneykaye
changed the title
Track mixing frequency as int (not float64)
Is it better to track mixing frequency as int (not float64)?
Feb 9, 2016
charneykaye
changed the title
Is it better to track mixing frequency as int (not float64)?
Is it better to track mixing frequency as int? (opp. to float64)
Feb 9, 2016
charneykaye
changed the title
Is it better to track mixing frequency as int? (opp. to float64)
Is it better to track mixing frequency as int? (versus float64)
Feb 9, 2016
charneykaye
changed the title
Is it better to track mixing frequency as int? (versus float64)
Is it better to track mix-output frequency as int or float64?
Feb 9, 2016
Currently the mix-output frequency is tracked as
float64
.There is debate whether a "sample rate" is always an integer. I could make an argument for using
int
instead:Assuming the mixing frequency will be:
But perhaps it's better to leave it as-is, a
float64
, because it does function nominally at present (if for whatever reason it is desirable to specify an extremely precise velocity of samples-per-second)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: