[bug] jit.change report mode backwards

    lists@lowfrequency.or
    Dec 04 2007 | 4:39 pm
    Hi,
    As far as I can tell, jit.change's "report" mode is backwards.
    Expected: a different matrix into jit.change should trigger a report 1, the same matrix should trigger a "report 0" message. (As per HTML reference)
    Results: The real results are the reverse - "report 0" for a changed matrix, "report 1" for a different one.
    • Jeremy
      Dec 16 2007 | 12:14 pm
      The logic here is that of == - are the two matrices equal? 0 = false; 1 = true -- so as far as that goes, the object works properly.
      jb
      Am 04.12.2007 um 17:39 schrieb evan.raskob [lists]:
      > Expected: a different matrix into jit.change should trigger a report > 1, the same matrix should trigger a "report 0" message. (As per > HTML reference) > > Results: The real results are the reverse - "report 0" for a > changed matrix, "report 1" for a different one. >
    • lists@lowfrequency.or
      Dec 16 2007 | 1:20 pm
      Yes, what you wrote is correct, and this is the behaviour of jit.change. But, what I read in the HTML reference is the reverse:
      "With report set to on (1), jit.change will behave a bit like Max's == object. If jit.change determines that the matrix input has not changed (within the parameters set with the mode and thresh attributes), it will send the message report 0 from its rightmost outlet. If the matrix input has changed, jit.change will send the message report 1."
      this says that: [same matrix in] -- [jit.change] = 0 [different matrix in] -- [jit.change] = 1
      which is the opposite of ==.
      Right?
      Cheers Evan
      On Dec 16, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
      > The logic here is that of == - are the two matrices equal? 0 = > false; 1 = true -- so as far as that goes, the object works properly. > > jb > > Am 04.12.2007 um 17:39 schrieb evan.raskob [lists]: > >> Expected: a different matrix into jit.change should trigger a >> report 1, the same matrix should trigger a "report 0" message. >> (As per HTML reference) >> >> Results: The real results are the reverse - "report 0" for a >> changed matrix, "report 1" for a different one. >> >
    • Jeremy
      Dec 16 2007 | 4:54 pm
      Yeah. That's a documentation bug - will be fixed for Max 5. Thanks!
      jb
      Am 16.12.2007 um 14:20 schrieb evan.raskob [lists]:
      > this says that: > [same matrix in] -- [jit.change] = 0 > [different matrix in] -- [jit.change] = 1 > > which is the opposite of ==.
    • lists@lowfrequency.or
      Dec 16 2007 | 9:27 pm
      You're welcome - it was such huge doc bug that after 5 years (?) of jitter being around, no one else has realized it... :)
      cheers evan
      On Dec 16, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
      > Yeah. That's a documentation bug - will be fixed for Max 5. Thanks! > > jb > > Am 16.12.2007 um 14:20 schrieb evan.raskob [lists]: > >> this says that: >> [same matrix in] -- [jit.change] = 0 >> [different matrix in] -- [jit.change] = 1 >> >> which is the opposite of ==. >