On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 10:59:47PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Now, what about putting each object class of pd in a different package?
I am assuming you mean a different package for each [osc~] [cos] [+]
etc.
That's what I mean.
This would give the user a lot more choice, modularity is flexibility.
grrr, typo, change "is" to "and", to match what you had said before.
But it doesn't seem very practical. Can you tell me of any user who wants
that amount of flexibilty and choice?
Let's wait a bit, there must be someone. However it doesn't mean we'd find
that person right away... not even 2% of pd users write on pd-list.
Personally I'm interested in rationales used in a feature acceptance
process. It's not really a rhetorical question, because I'm really
interested in answers.
If we compare pd-extended to how Debian/Ubuntu packages are structured for
programming languages like Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby, PHP, etc., then
pd-extended would be a few dozen packages already.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
