@porres read the first 3 or 5 posts of this thread and you will understand.
vsnapshot~ seems to return some arbitary? value.

(And we are trying to restore the 'internal double precision state of phasor~' from the outside in single precision. It turned out that this thread is not about block-boundaries, sample-accuracy ect. )

@lacuna said:

vsnapshot~ seems to return some arbitary? value.

it actually gets the correct value, and it's the only one that can do it in the control rate input. Otherwise you have to use sample accurate triggering with a sample and hold (not what I am doing here).

you can see that [snapshot~] reports the last sample of a block, while [vsnapshot~] will get the correct one, in this case the first one. But it can even get the correct sample if the bang got delay like, say, 5 samples...

test it

I read the first messages and I couldn't understand at all what you people are discussing, or the idea about this complicated patch, sorry

@porres said:

I read the first messages and I couldn't understand at all what you people are discussing, or the idea about this complicated patch, sorry

OK, here's a restatement of the problem but presented as a patch. See if you can complete the two subpatches in such a way that it passes the exact copy test on the right. phasor snapshot problem statement.pd

I think you will discover that there's no snapshot or vsnapshot that is sufficient to make the right phasor output the exact same sequence as captured on the left. That said, there were other solutions proposed above that had a different structure, so it's not impossible, I'm just claiming it's impossible without going to 64 bit using this structure.