Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

I'm baffled so far. I notice that your patch misbehaves in commit 82adaf15f0ff2928c26e261b76d1d5ed809d5788 - the subpatch creeps up one pixel each time. Then after the next commit, dfbfc754b30e26da2d105fa85cb73152ce9e40b5, the patch jumps down about the height of the menu bar each time. The

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

Cool, that seems to be working... I think I'll have to confront fractional font sizes pretty soon - more and more stuff is going to start breaking in TK 8.4. cheers Miller P.S. I hope fatherhood and germany-moving-in are going well - thanks for being so present on the list while all that's

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

> On Jul 16, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > > Sure enough - with TK 8.5, font sizes are no longer integers; the > "font metrics" command appears to return the next-higher integer > sizes (thus throwing off box sizes and messing up selecting text within > boxes). > >

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

Hey all I'm experiencing window position troubles on X11 (Ubuntu 16.04, fluxbox). When loading patches in Pd 0.48 that were last saved with Pd 0.47, the windows appear at the correct positions. But when saving and reloading them on 0.48, they move upwards and slightly to the left on each cycle.

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

Sure enough - with TK 8.5, font sizes are no longer integers; the "font metrics" command appears to return the next-higher integer sizes (thus throwing off box sizes and messing up selecting text within boxes). I'm not sure what to do - try to adapt Pd to deal with fractional font sizes, or find

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

> The "bad" behavior is that, fro instance, 0 in gives 1 out.  That happened on everyone's machine except mine (so I was blissfully unaware that anything was wrong).  I'm running fedora linux.  Even debian linux machines gave the wrong answer while my machine kept giving me the right one.  Im

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

The "bad" behavior is that, fro instance, 0 in gives 1 out. That happened on everyone's machine except mine (so I was blissfully unaware that anything was wrong). I'm running fedora linux. Even debian linux machines gave the wrong answer while my machine kept giving me the right one. Im not

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

> That's just the question - is it worth keeping an old bug available for compatibility?  In this case, perhaps yes - although you'd have to explicitly set a compatibility flag in Pd to get eh old behavior. > (incidentally teh old behavior was machine-dependent - this complicates it even

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

That's just the question - is it worth keeping an old bug available for compatibility? In this case, perhaps yes - although you'd have to explicitly set a compatibility flag in Pd to get eh old behavior. (incidentally teh old behavior was machine-dependent - this complicates it even further :)

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

2017-07-16 13:03 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list : > Hi Miller, > > Should there be a compatibility path for the following bugfix: > > https://sourceforge.net/p/pure-data/pure-data/ci/ > fc1dd9b0d93e9b039719103155b5772f20762c7e/ > > Looks like the old behavior was

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

Yeah, been trying to decide if this rises to the level of needing a compatibility path. I'll try to get to that later today. On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:03:38PM +, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote: > Hi Miller, > Should there be a compatibility path for the following bugfix: > >

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

Hi Miller, Should there be a compatibility path for the following bugfix: https://sourceforge.net/p/pure-data/pure-data/ci/fc1dd9b0d93e9b039719103155b5772f20762c7e/ Looks like the old behavior was there for awhile. -Jonathan ___ Pd-list@lists.iem.at

Re: [PD] [PD-announce] pd 0.48-0test1 released

thanks, it works now : I just compile it and start a complex patch : everything look like working. i'll do more test later. cheers c Le 16/07/2017 à 04:18, Miller Puckette a écrit : Duh, may bad - I've updated the source tarball to be the actual git sources (I had been using a script I wrote