A simple-to-use sound file writer

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Steve Holden:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> * Steve Holden:
>>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>> * Grant Edwards:
>>>>> On 2010-01-15, Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I will, however, observe that your definition of a square wave is
>>>>>> what I
>>>>>> would have to call a "'square' wave" (and would prefer to call a
>>>>>> "pulse
>>>>>> train"), as I envisage a square wave as a waveform having a 50% duty
>>>>>> cycle, as in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ___     ___
>>>>>> |   |   |   |
>>>>>> |   |   |   |
>>>>>> |   |   |   |
>>>>>> +---+---+---+---+ and so on ad infinitum, (though I might allow you
>>>>>>     |   |   |   |                          to adjust the position
>>>>>>     |   |   |   |                          of y=0 if you want)
>>>>>>     |___|   |___|
>>>>> That is a square wave.
>>>>>
>>>>>> as opposed to your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          _
>>>>>>         | |
>>>>>>         | |
>>>>>>   ______| |______   ______
>>>>>>                  | |
>>>>>>                  | |
>>>>>>                  |_|
>>>>> That isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arguing to the contrary is just being Humpty Dumpty...
>>>> Neither I nor Steve has called that latter wave a square wave.
>>>>
>>>> Steve, quoted above, has written that I defined a square wave that way.
>>>> I have not. So Steve's statement is a misrepresentation (I described it
>>>> as a sum of two square waves, which it is), whatever the reason for that
>>>> misrepresentation.
>>>>
>>>>
> 
[snip]
> So here you have an interesting example of a
> piece of code that is pathological in Python2. All you have to change is
> to add
> 
>   from __future__ import __division__
> 
> and bingo! It's a multi-language program. But try seeing what 2to3 says
> about your Python3 code :)
> 
> I will forgive you the omission of the ".0" because I too would assume
> that it would be slower.

I did not make any such assumption, no. The *1 just lingered from some testing.


[snip]
> and so on, but I still get silence from the Quicktime player.

I don't know, sorry.

It might be that [simple_sound] also needs the "from __future__" treatment.

But anyway, with 2.x compatible code you can now see that the sample values 
produced are correct (just print them, or graph them).


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf