On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 03:29 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Jamie Bullock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 09:54 -0400, Enrique Erne wrote: > >> Hi Jamie > >> > >> It's not much but might be helpful to port other stuff to purepd. > >> > >> you'll find > >> gt~.pd (>~) > >> lt~.pd (<~) > >> sgn~.pd > >> > >> http://www.netpd.org/eni/purepd/ > > > > That's great actually, and I'd love to contribute back into this. > > However, if I'm not mistaked aren't there two purepd projects > > netpd/purepd and Hans's purepd in pd svn? Would it be worth feeding your > > patches into Hans's, and then any other abstractions I make/find I can > > also feed into svn? > > > > just out of curiosity: >~.pd, <~.pd, sgn~ and what else in zexy are > already pd-vanilla abstractions (some of them are both abstractions > and externals for performance reasons); is there an advantage in > collecting these things in yet another arbitrary (as opposed to > grouped by functionality) library?
I think I kind of addressed this in my reply to Patrick, but I find the current situation with libraries of abstractions and externals a bit unsatisfactory. It would really be better if we separated out the storage layout (svn) and the user presentation bit, so that users could group externals/pathches by tag, or some othe non-hierarchical/non-exclusive grouping. Jamie -- www.postlude.co.uk http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiebullock _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list