Message written at 3 Jul 1999 17:06:40 +0100
--- Copy of mail to lt@westnet.com ---

>>>>> "Larry" == Larry Troxler  writes:

 Larry> Looks like in wgpluck (pluck.c), the exitation signal is simply added to
 Larry> the output, without being introduced into the waveguide, as what appears
 Larry> to be done correctly in wgpluck2 (repluck.c). 

It was a surprise to me to discover the audio signal input in wgpluck
and i could not work out what the code did with it.  The code for this
opcode is really ina form of C++, which I (personally0 find hard to
read.

 Larry> History on these two opcodes, anyone? Why are there two different ones?
 Larry> Is "wgpluck" considered obsolete/buggy and left in for compatibility?
 Larry> Should I submit a patch to fix this bug?

Actually teh two opcodes were developed totally independently.
wgpluck was written by Mike cassey at MIT.  i was responsibel for
wgpluck2, which was really an experiment it whether i could understand
waveguides.  the excitation signal idea came to be one evening when
dreaming about bowed strings, and Richard B. encouraged me to
implement it, as something similar is used in his PhD thesis work. 
There are problems in wgpluck2 as I use a mixture of oversampling and
teh like, and so ther are somne intonation problems.  I understood
that wgpluck did not have those problems, but I never worked out how
to use it.  

 Larry> Incidently, it is only by accident that I discovered this, since it is
 Larry> not clear from the doc for wgpluck that the "aexcite" param can be zero
 Larry> (why isn't it optional then), if you just want an ideal pluck
 Larry> excitation. It isn't very clear the way it's doc'd, I thought at first
 Larry> that aexcite was a "pluck" signal that would be applied to the waveguide
 Larry> at the pluck point. (How can I submit a patch to the manual?)

Sounds liek a good idea.  The documentation, ai seem to remember, was
hacked together by me reading teh code 9see above) and if someone has
understood it that seems altogether a good idea.