-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> 2013/3/19 Fero Kiraly <fero.kir...@gmail.com> >> >> why is pix_write numbering files like this ? : 00000 00001 00002 >> ... 00253 ... because it makes it easier to sort files alphabetically. >> >> and pix_multiimage is supposed to read files with 'clear' >> numbering like >> this: 0 1 2 .. 256 because it's borked (for compatibility reasons) On 2013-03-19 14:34, Antoine Villeret wrote: > Hi, > > I totally agree with you Fero, I experienced the same difficulty to > use images written with pix_write in pix_multiimage. I made a > script to rename the files. But it could good to have an option > like 'pix_write_naming_style' in pix_multiimage which can make both > working together, isn't it ? as a matter of fact, i think [pix_multiimage] is deprecated, and you should use an abstraction wrapper using [pix_buffer] and [makefilename] instead. thus, you can choose the naming scheme you like. similarily, [pix_write] can easily build as an abstraction using [pix_buffer] and [makefilename], so you can choose the naming scheme you like. Gem already comes with an abstraction implementation of [pix_write] (though it's currently overwritten by the Gem built-in of the same name and functionality) fgamdsr IOhannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFItZ0ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQDNQCaAuByMQWxxGhnqwgPhztNgtQh wfwAoLYxGGNxn4nKRFEE8VCHCVS1hagI =279m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
