Re: silence additional patch

["Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>]

fbk-qriry@zacglen.net writes:

>>fbk-qriry@zacglen.net writes:
>>
>>> Further to my previous "silence" patch I have discovered
>>> that there is another error involving the rms calculations.
>>>
>>> Initially, and after a reset, the rms sample window is empty
>>> yet the rms calculation always uses the window size as
>>> the calculation denominator. This will make the rms
>>> value appear artificially low to start with. Instead, an
>>> actual count of samples should be used.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I think that the hard-coded 1/50 for selection
>>> of a window size should also be parametized. Sometimes a size using
>>> 1/20 (100 milliseconds when stereo) can be more appropriate than the
>>> very small 40 millisecond hard-coded sample window size.
>>>
>>> The following is the updated patch:
>>
>>I'm certainly not going to take a patch with several unrelated changes
>>as is, nor am I going to do the work unravelling what's what.
>>
>>-- 
>>Mns Rullgrd
>>
>
> Perhaps that is why there are still so many blatant bugs in sox
> after all of these years?
>
> I have only started looking and I am sure I can find many
> many more.
>
> It is entirely up to you. I feed information into your brain
> and if your brain is incapable or unwilling to digest any of it
> then that is entirely your problem.
>
> Please bear in mind that sox currently contains hundred of
> related and unrelated lines of code. And that doesn't stop
> sox from working does it? Unrelatedness has never been
> an obstacle in the past has it?
>
> Anyhow would you care to introduce yourself and explain how
> it is that you have apparently become the sole arbiter of what
> is good or bad for sox.
>
> Incidentally, I can very easily patch sox entirely for my own
> benefit and there is no compulsion for me to publish such
> private changes on any public forum. I only do that out of
> the goodness of my heart. The patches merely serve as a convenient
> way of explaining the bugs in more detail. Once a person such as
> your kind self has availed him- or her-self of the wisdom of my discoveries
> then your good person is freely available to work very hard at finding
> some good reason to cast aspersions upon my discoveries. But I would
> submit that the easier path would be to take my discoveries on board
> and make good use of what has cost me in time and effort, at no
> cost to yourself.

If that's the attitude you're going to display, I will have to ask you
to kindly go away until such time as you are able to engage in a polite
conversation.  Perhaps you could use that time to study good software
development practices.

-- 
Måns Rullgård


_______________________________________________
SoX-devel mailing list
SoX-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-devel