On 19/06/2007, at 1.06, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 00:47 +0200, Steffen wrote:
>> On 18/06/2007, at 23.21, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>
>>> one question still remains: how is it organized?
>>
>> If it is of any interest i've already voided my opinion, cf.
>> http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2007-06/051122.html
>
> absolutely. thanks for bringing this up again. i agree with you,
> though
great.
> who does define the goals?
I think you (pl.) are defining the goals and form of it in this email
correspondence. It goes quite well. When you consider it dense, add
it up in a README. Maybe even make a wiki page for it in http://
puredata.info/community/projects/ holding the README and pointing to
the files in the lib, but keeping stuff in _a_ cvs might be nice over
time.
> maybe you have already an idea about how the goals could look like?
I have ideas and expectations to this project. I think it is a very
nice idea that i've hoped to happen. The idea of having a shared lib
with focus on (mid-level) dsp abstractions or "sound modules" i think
might make it huge, as in lots of folks might use and like it. and
add to it.
Id like to see the orchestra lib too, but it might be nice as a
separate "project" as it's easy to specify what it should consist of
(ie. orchestra voices). And as it might make sense to have another
form (where form means interface to the objects in the lib) then what
it going to be the form in this lib.
But i don't have any abs to share atm, and don't have much time to
write down my ideas. Damn studies.
Question. Will all the object be like:
input: control data
output: signal/"audio",
or will the also be ("audio manipulators") objects like:
input: signal/"audio"
output: singal/"audio"?
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
