Indeed, the 'tidy up" function is a good example of what I could adapt from llork into vanilla. (Another, major thing I'm planning to adopt is the stacking order and infinite undo feature(s) ). I have to say that's much more interesting and important than list foreach (which I think neds to be redesigned somewhat).
Not doing this right now because I'm 100% duty cycle teaching at the moment. cheers M On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:23:44AM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote: > The main reason Pd-l2ork is not benefiting more users is because there aren't > binaries/bundles for OSX and Windows. There's a Pd-l2ork app I made for OSX > some time back that has a small selection of libs I compiled with it, but I > don't think there will be any more work on more platforms until we complete > the move to Qt for the GUI. > > Btw-- there are many facets of the development process where waiting for an > ultimate design is counterproductive. If you want to try devoting energy to > Pd Vanilla, start with the "Tidy Up" function. It is self-contained and a > less-than-perfect design won't affect anything else in Pd. Moreover, nearly > anything you implement will be better than what's currently there. (There's > an improved "Tidy Up" in Pd-l2ork, btw.) > > If instead you wait for an ultimate design, the users lose because they get > zero productivity increase while you/they wait. > > -Jonathan > > > > On Friday, October 10, 2014 4:06 AM, Chris McCormick <ch...@mccormick.cx> > wrote: > > > > Hi Jonathan, > > I am beginning to think that this is the part of tonight's routine where > I am made to eat my words. :) > > On 10/10/14 15:15, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > > Oops, I mean: which improvements would you like to port? > > > > On Friday, October 10, 2014 3:14 AM, Jonathan Wilkes > > <jancs...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I've used the same development process for Pd-extended and Vanilla > > as I have with Pd-l2ork. It is pretty close to the general outline you > > gave in this thread. There is no difference in working relationship-- I > > send patches, write emails, test changes, say snarky things, etc. > > > > But I'll happily work with you to improve Pd Vanilla and get as many > > improvements as possible from Pd-l2ork ported into it. Which > > improvements you'd like to port. > > I really appreciate this response and sentiment, thanks. > > I must admit to ignorance again as to what features could go from > Pd-l2ork into Pd. This is because I only know about Pd-l2ork from what > Ico showed me at VT - SVG rendering, k-12 application, and infinite > undo. I am probably forgetting other things he showed me - it was quite > a demo! > > The only concrete one that seems obvious to me is infinite undo, and it > seems like there is at least some desire from Miller's side for this > feature from what Ico said. It also seems like creating a branch of > Miller's Pd with the Pd-l2ork patches applying cleanly would be a > mammoth task and I can't ask you to do that because I don't have time or > skills to do it myself. If you did this of course, you would be my > absolute Pd hero. > > Miller, what do you think about infinite undo? > > In the future with things like "list foreach" do you think there is a > middle ground we could follow where we implement it in a way that might > go into Miller's Pd as well as into Pd-l2ork and then actually try to > solicit feedback from Miller? > > In some situations I know this may involve emailing him and the list > first to try to reach a consensus on the implementation before starting. > I also know that Miller sometimes gets handwavey in those situations > because he hasn't figured out the ultimate design yet. In my experience, > waiting for the ultimate design is quite often worth it. For example, I > would have implemented the tosymbol/fromsymbol stuff completely > differently but it's now obvious to me that Miller's implementation > kicks the crap out of anything I'd thought of in terms of flexibility > and wider applicability. > > I may again be being ignorant but it I don't remember any kind of > submitting-back-to-Pd process with "list cat" so I assume it's not > something that generally happens right now due to (understandable) > frustration with the process etc. > > I feel like it would be great for everyone involved if we could keep > more compatibility with these base objects and that is my agenda in > advocating for it. I also understand you guys might be totally > disinterested in doing that work (Ico's frustration case in point), and > it might hold you back too much, and that's ok too. I need to push for > it though because I think it's of great benefit to many users (including > myself) if we can get it right. > > > Cheers, > > Chris. > > -- > http://mccormick.cx/ > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
