On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:52 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote: > >> I therefore define "missing" as when the best answer on the table is >> "use [expr~]" or "use this equivalence made of more than 2 or 3 >> objects" > > What about vanilla-abstractions? Pd-vanilla currently only ships with > a handful of abstractions (rev123~.pd, hilbert~.pd) intended to be put > in the path. Some of the missing math objects could be included as > simple default abstractions, like [sin~]. Zexy went this route for > [abs~]. > > Another point to take into account could be how many times an > operation has been coded as an external before. [abs~] currently was > coded four times to my knowledge (markex, zexy, creb, cyclone). This > shows, that there is a demand for this operation, otherwise people > wouldn't have bothered to code it. So yes, [abs~] would be good to > have in Pd. > > I'm reluctant to mention [counter] here, which also was coded many > times, unfortunatly in incompatible ways. I'm reluctant, because > [counter] is too basic to be included. Call me elitist, but I believe > counting is such a basic and important operation, Pd users should't > learn how to count in Pd itself. > > Finally a motivation to include more binary objects may be efficiency. > Some [list]-abs are much slower than necessary ([list-idx], > [list-drip]) and these operations would be good to have in Pd as well.
Then we should also add streaming... wait this is starting to sound a bit like Pd-extended ;) .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 'You people have such restrictive dress for women,’ she said, hobbling away in three inch heels and panty hose to finish out another pink-collar temp pool day. - “Hijab Scene #2", by Mohja Kahf _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list