On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:42 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> Yeah, I think having subpatches visually distinct would definitely be >> useful, since they are really a hidden chunk of the current patch >> rather than an object. > > Personally I wouldn't care. To me it's enough that they have a special > name with "pd" and a funky argument. [pd THE_SCORE] is visually > different enough to me, and often I don't care that a subpatch is a > subpatch (e.g. in [pd count-to-10] or so). > > [textfile] also is different from [osc~], but do they necessarily need > to look different? And everywhere? When using data structures to just > hold data, a subpatch is very similar to [textfile]. Should these two > be similar then? If you enable GOP in your subpatch, it already can be > made to look very different from other objects.
It's a visual language, so I think it's very important to find ways of clearly representing things visually. black on white with 1px boxes, doesn't say much. The ends of the message boxes and atom boxes are nice, I think they work well. > So in the end I think, making objects look different automatically is > a hairy issue. Some more ways to make individual objetcs look > different on a one-by-one base could be interesting, though. You can write GUI objects. I'd like to see a jMax [trigger] in Pd, it's quite nice. .hc > > Ciao > -- > Frank Barknecht _ > ______footils.org__ > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- The arc of history bends towards justice. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
