This is a serious problem -- putting a backwards "pow~" into Pd might be worse than having none at all. But writing a book that uses "pow" backwards would be even worse than having one in Pd!
Maybe the "right" thing would be to use another name such as "power~". On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:08PM +0100, Andy Farnell wrote: > > Yep. What is to be done about that? Should we keep > to the conventions of vanilla and Pd generally by > changing that? > > I am torn on this. I would have a lot of rewriting to do > but would like to see conventions observed. > > OTOH, maybe compatibility with patches out there using Cyclone > [pow~] should be respected as a priority. > > BTW it's very important for to know. If it changes after I > publish the book I will hire a bounty hunter to bring me > the fingers of whoever made the changes :) > > > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:39:07 -0400 > marius schebella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > btw, are all pow~ objects reversed? right inlet^left inlet? > > marius. > > > > Andy Farnell wrote: > > > Did I read that Cyclone is to be incorporated into vanilla Pd? > > > > > > Having discovered too late that [pow~] is not part of vanilla > > > I am about to remove the constraint of using vanilla Pd for > > > the synthetic sound design book since it is incomplete without > > > basic mathematical operators. > > > > > > andy > > > > > > > > -- > Use the source > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list