similar to: Does ogg segments include more than one Vorbis frame

I noticed that, when decoding an ogg vorbis file that was encoded with the xiph library, that the comment header and setup header are encoded on one page. Okay, the vorbis documentation says you can do this, no problem. My question is, the lacing values seem to indicate where the packet boundaries for the two of these are, is this required, or is this just a hint? Further, I'm seeing

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I thought I would separate this out into a separate mail since it's not comment specific stuff -- There seem to be a couple of inconcistanies in the Ogg spec as regards to lacing values: *) "The raw packet is logicaly divided into [n] 255 byte segments and a last fractional segment of < 255 bytes." However, in the wild, I've

Hi, I'm currently trying to implement the Ogg specification in pure Java from scratch. (I know, something like that does exist, but that's a rewrite from C, at least that's my impression). I'm a bit confused with the number of lacing values/segments in a page, and the maximum length a page can have. The specification says, that there can be 255 segments in a page, 255 bytes each

Someone could tell me the question about the question about lacing values values of segments. I mean i know what happens about segmentation but reading ogg specs i didn't understand this lines: "We simply add the lacing values for the total size; the last lacing value for a packet is always the value that is less than 255. Note that this encoding both avoids imposing a maximum packet

Hello, Thomas Stabla (statho3@web.de) has already sent this question to R-help, Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:21:31 +0100, but we are not sure whether we should better post this mail to this audience than to R-help: --------------------------------------------------------------------- We are using S4-classes and want to force a validity check when an object is created. How can this be done, when an

Good morning. LLVM and clang can be built successfully on Fedora 12 PS3. On RC1, only one test failed. test/CodeGen/X86/fold-pcmpeqd-0.ll On release_29 branch, all llvm tests can pass. (I don't mention clang tests :p ) ...Takumi Fedora release 12 (Constantine) Linux speedking.localdomain 2.6.32.23-170.fc12.ppc64 #1 SMP Mon Sep 27 17:09:35 UTC 2010 ppc64 ppc64 ppc64 GNU/Linux llvm

i am struggling a bit with all of them .. could someone be so nice a describe me the exact differences, pros & cons of all of them ... thx a lot! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to

Hello, the last command (isGeneric) in following R-code (attached) produces different output, depending on wheter 1.8.0 alpha or 1.7.1 is used. Is that to be expected ? Both R Versions were started with option vanilla --------------------------------------------------- R.1.7.1: --------------------------------------------------- > version _ platform i686-pc-linux-gnu arch i686

David Flynn has proposed a new Ogg Dirac mapping. The draft is here: http://davidf.woaf.net/dirac-mapping-ogg.pdf This is a much bigger break from other codecs than my draft (at http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggDirac). We talked a bit about it on IRC today. Below is my summary; hopefully David can correct anything I got wrong or misleading. Comments? There are two main differences

>Searching for 'vorbis' to find the packet boundary is wrong however. >The lacing values in the Ogg page header tells you exactly where the >division is. OK, so given the fact that a page can also contain multiple packets this means that the lacing values of one page could be like the following example: 255 255 189 (something less than 255, indicating that a new packet starts

Hello At the start of October, Duane Johnson announced the Query mixin plugin on this list. The code was attached to the announcement email. Unfortunately, I''ve not been able to locate the attached code. Goggle has not helped me this time. Could somebody forward it to me? Thanks in advance Harvey This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs.

Hi Aaron, thanks for your thoughts on improving the Ogg encapsulation format. As Monty was the person who developed the specification, I am forwarding your suggestions to him. Maybe some of these changes can be adopted into a future version of the Ogg encapsulation format. Best Regards, Silvia. Aaron Williams wrote: > Hi Silvia, > > After reading the RFC on the ogg streaming

I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except for `:`), but lower than the other unary operators. Even if we gave unary specials their own precedence I think it would end up in the same place. `%l%` <- function(x) tail(x, n =

R has long supported user defined binary (infix) functions, defined with `%fun%`. A one line change [1] to R's grammar allows users to define unary (prefix) functions in the same manner. `%chr%` <- function(x) as.character(x) `%identical%` <- function(x, y) identical(x, y) %chr% 100 #> [1] "100" %chr% 100 %identical% "100" #> [1] TRUE

Hi, Thanks for the quick reply again. > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Fang <fang at csl.cornell.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've bootstrapped llvm/clang from svn-trunk on powerpc-darwin8 (g++-4.0.1), and >> have the following test results to share. >> Summary below, full log at: >>

I''m happy I''ve succeeded in creating Windows 2003 server guest VM on a xen machine. (if anybody interested in how to, refer to Xen Technical Note V07132006) My further question is: is there a way I can assign a null video device to Windows VM? I want win server keep working, but not its display (implemented on gnome) on console monitor all the time. Joon Woo

>After off list discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with >Michael Lawrence I think it's doable, unambiguous, >and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" operator. For those of us who are not CS/Lisp mavens, what is an "unquote" operator? Can you expression quoting and unquoting in R syntax and show a few examples where is is useful, intuitive, and fits in to

Your example x = 5 exp = parse(text="f(uq(x)) + y +z") # expression: f(uq(x)) +y + z do_unquote(expr) # -> the language object f(5) + y + z could be done with the following wrapper for bquote my_do_unquote <- function(language, envir = parent.frame()) { if (is.expression(language)) { # bquote does not go into expressions, only calls

The unquoting discussion is IMHO separate from this proposal and as you noted probably better served by a native operator with different precedence. I think the main benefit to providing user defined prefix operators is it allows package authors to experiment with operator ideas and gauge community interest. The current situation means any novel unary semantics either need to co-opt existing

I guess this would establish a separate "namespace" of symbolic prefix operators, %*% being an example in the infix case. So you could have stuff like %?%, but for non-symbolic (spelled out stuff like %foo%), it's hard to see the advantage vs. foo(x). Those examples you mention should probably be addressed (eventually) in the core language, and it looks like people are already able