Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, What about patches that use # or ? or @ to mean something else already? By treating all character combinations to be valid unless otherwise used, Pd has painted itself in a corner about extending functionality. Anything new breaks some compatibility: you can only hope that a certain combination of characters is not already in use by actual patches, but you can't even know that. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: 2) I guess it may imply some implementation difficulties, since in the patch file $'s are actually saved as #'s (indeed there's even a bug that if you open a slider/toggle's properties and it has a property with some $'s inside its name other than at the beginning, they will show as #, although they work properly) No, this is just a hack at the level of the property dialogs, not at the level of saving files. It's because of some superstition about backslashes. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: I don't know how easy/difficult an implementation of new variable names would be. I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, and a #0 or ?0 or @0 in a message or an object would behave like the old $0 var in objects. ATM I cannot think of a way, that introduces # as a substitute for $ in $1 ... messages, that would *not* break backwards compatibility: What if someone already used #1 in a message to mean just a literal #1? Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote: Matteo Sisti Sette hat gesagt: // Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: Am I using some 0.40-only feature? I think not, because your approach was the one used in the past, when [send] wasn't settable yet. But anyway: I also think, you're cheating, ecause you're actually changing the message box and thus creating many different message boxes on the fly, while the [s] isn't changed for variable length lists. A messagebox is a messagebox. Unlike objectboxes, they are not magically recreated. Instead, the internal binbuf gets cleared. Sending set messages to messageboxes isn't much different from sending a float to a [hsl] or [nbx] in init mode... and even in no init mode, if you look at saved files closely. I think you need some categorisation of state with more than two levels, e.g.: 1. purely volatile state; 2. something that will be saved in the patch; 3. something that will also be reloaded from file; 4. dynamic patching: obj, msg, connect, ... _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] debounce (WAS: Re: [HID] Object - How to Ignore message event...)
A! Now I think I understand. Perhaps you want a debounce, so that your key can only be triggered once within a certain amount of time? This is normally handled in the dataflow of your patch, rather than by the [hid] the object itself. See the attached patch for one method of debouncing an input. If this isn't what you need, have a look at the part with the greater than or equal to object [=]. This gives a 0 or a 1 as output which can be used to open and close a [spigot]. For example, [= 100] and [= 200] would both give 1 if the number from your counter was between 100 and 200. Then, [==] could compare the outputs of both and if they are the same, it would give a 1, and otherwise a 0. It really pays to learn a bit more about the dataflow within PD, rather than expecting high level objects to do all the work for you! ;-) best, d. Carlos Caires wrote: No, not at all...I have no problems with the amount of information. The problem is that, for a certain purpose, a need the element 10 open for a period of time and close for another period. That is to say, I want to create limits to some key events. Let say that I have a [metro 1000] plus a [counter 360], between 100 and 200 the element 10 is opened, otherwise it is closed. Do you see any way to make this work within the HID object? C.C. -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 34: Consider different fading systems #N canvas 219 53 691 541 10; #X obj 246 296 + 1; #X obj 202 296 f; #X obj 202 371 =; #X obj 202 264 metro 1; #X obj 202 232 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 0 -6 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X text 283 296 Standard counter construction; #X obj 169 415 spigot; #X obj 142 107 random 128; #X obj 142 87 bng 15 250 50 0 empty empty empty 0 -6 0 10 -262144 -1 -1; #X floatatom 169 466 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X obj 142 146 t b f; #X msg 142 175 0; #X text 222 106 Let's simulate some input!; #X obj 247 329 nbx 5 14 -1e+37 1e+37 0 0 empty empty empty 0 -6 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 256; #X text 310 328 Debounce time in ms; #X text 231 370 Is the current time greater than or equal to the debounce time? If so \, open the spigot. Otherwise \, keep it closed.; #X text 502 468 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; #X text 51 25 DEBOUNCE.PD; #X text 201 144 First send the numeric message to the spigot to be passed or not passed \, then reset the counter with a 0 so that no more messages can be passed within the debounce time.; #N canvas 0 22 453 181 more 0; #X obj 119 60 trigger float bang symbol list pointer anything; #X text 22 48 float = f; #X text 22 60 bang = b; #X text 21 72 symbol = s; #X text 22 86 list = l; #X text 22 114 anything = a; #X text 22 100 pointer = p; #X text 24 11 So your input isn't just a float? Nao problemo! Use a different creation argument:; #X restore 378 217 pd more info on [trigger]; #X connect 0 0 1 1; #X connect 1 0 0 0; #X connect 1 0 2 0; #X connect 2 0 6 1; #X connect 3 0 1 0; #X connect 4 0 3 0; #X connect 6 0 9 0; #X connect 7 0 10 0; #X connect 8 0 7 0; #X connect 10 0 11 0; #X connect 10 1 6 0; #X connect 11 0 1 0; #X connect 13 0 2 1; ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Mathieu Bouchard wrote (and a few other people wrote something similar): $0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent with anything at all. $0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think of $0 as of an implicit creation argument. The name $0 has the same scope of the names $1,$2, in the sense that: in any two places where two $0's would have the same value, two $1's would have the same value. Both are values that are generated at the time of creating the object (semantically I mean, I don't know if it is so in implementation and it is irrelevant) and don't change later. So it is not *so* inconsistent. Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would make it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is with $1,$2 in object boxes. $1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box receives its input and generates its output; they are arguments of the message it receives. The natural object-counterpart of $0 would be a number that is unique to that particular message event (not message box) or message tree, though that would be of little or no use. or wouldn't it? Also, consider the following goal: (*) give direct access to (implicit and explicit) creation arguments ($n) of the patch within a message Making $0 mean the same in a message box than outside it would address goal (*) only for the particular case of $0 and not for n0, and I personally think this isn't an elegant approach. Also, any future attempt to address (*) for n0, would probably result more difficult or have to be more inconsistend if the $0 case has been treated this way. I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning the same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. If there actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason imho to deliberately introduce more inconsistence. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905d=17-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;- messages instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? I cannot speak for Miller, but one difference with message-senders is, that you send to various receivers in one go: [; detune 0.2; freq 440; vol 80; ...( which sometimes is handy for initializing many things with one click and in a central place. Yeah, it's a syntactic shortcut, but one click init is also possible using sends. Also msg-bangs will warn, if there is no receiver available. send-sends just send and ignore it, if they send to nothing. Hmm, that sounds to me like a bug. I don't see why these should behave differently in this respect. is one more efficient then the other send-sends are much more effective than msg-sends, I suppose mostly because of dollar-variable replacements. See attached benchmark-patch. Nice patch, that's a substantial difference. I got 80 for sendsends and 150 for msgsends. .hc Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ benchmark-sends.pd sendsend.pd msgsend.pd ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism.- retired U.S. Army general, William Odom ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [HID] Object - How to Ignore message event...
How about this:[hid]||[route element10]|| [X] -- [tgl][spigot]|| element10.pd Description: Binary data .hcOn Aug 17, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Carlos Caires wrote:No, not at all...I have no problems with the amount of information. The problem is that, for a certain purpose, a need the "element 10" open for a period of time and "close" for another period. That is to say, I want to create limits to some key events. Let say that I have a [metro 1000] plus a [counter 360], between 100 and 200 the element 10 is opened, otherwise it is closed. Do you see any way to make this work within the HID object? C.C. -Original Message- From: Derek Holzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thu 8/16/2007 5:53 PM To: Carlos Caires Cc: PD-list@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] [HID] Object - How to Ignore message event... I haven't seen it. But since you use [route] to filter the output data, I don't see why this would be necessary. Unless "element 10" is simply flooding you with too much information. But that usually only causes problems when the data is printed to the PD window. Use "debug 0" to turn off the printed messages and then [hid] will use a lot less CPU. d. Carlos Caires wrote: Hi all, I´m working around with the [HID] object, and I can´t see any way to ignore a particular event key(as in Max/MSP with the HI object where we can send an [ignore( message to any element e.g. [ignore 10( don´t output data from element 10). Is the any similar message for the HID object? -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 50: "Distort time"Esta mensagem (incluindo quais quer anexos) pode conter informação confidencial ou legalmente protegida para uso exclusivo do destinatário. Se não for o destinatário pretendido da mesma, não deverá fazer uso, copiar, distribuir ou revelar o seu conteúdo (incluindo quaisquer anexos) a terceiros, sem a devida autorização. Se recebeu esta mensagem por engano, por favor informe o emissor, por e-mail, e elimine-a imediatamente. Obrigado.This message may contain confidential information or privileged material, and is intended only for de individual(s) named. If you are not in the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. ___PD-list@iem.at mailing listUNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido! ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Mathieu Bouchard wrote: On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: I would give most priority to any kind of $0 feature in messages. and then the next step for me would be to differentiate between $-variables (in messages) and # or ? or @ variables in patches. that way you would not break backwards compatibility, What about patches that use # or ? or @ to mean something else already? By treating all character combinations to be valid unless otherwise used, Pd has painted itself in a corner about extending functionality. Anything new breaks some compatibility: you can only hope that a certain combination of characters is not already in use by actual patches, but you can't even know that. You are right, I thought it is unlikely that people use these characters often, but who knows. (maybe a search on the existing abstractions in the repository will give some clues.) even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before. but we have forums and lists, and I think that should be sufficiant to find a possible solution. marius. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] documentation material for Pd related grants, funds, and prizes
If there is enough interest to commit this to video, I could do a little shooting- just let me know and I will bring a camera and mic to Montreal. I will be there wed. evening through sat. morning. I am working on another documentary project right now and cannot commit to any reasonable schedule for editing or other post production but can hand over the tapes or work on it when my schedule opens up. I would want someone with more knowledge of the Pd world to help determine who and what to shoot and help with interviewing but I am happy to help out. greg On 8/16/07, marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, the money for Pd topic was already discussed often; pd licenses for universities, several other ways to support the development of pd like conventions, google summer of code and so on. although it never lead to results... I was thinking of funds or prizes like the ars electronica festival. I am still not sure if Pd will fit in one of the categories, but I know that you have to send a DVD about the project/community. maybe the pdconv would be a good place for some interviews and shoot good footage. one principle question for me with submissions is, if someone should be in charge of the pd community? like an official speaker, or a table of people. honestly I think no, but without that it will be more difficult to access some of the money. (does pd development need money at all???...) the more tanglible question is, if there is someone who wants to help getting this done, filming, interviewing, cutting, writing, research. marius. ___ 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
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't the same behavior in object and message boxes. Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit : Mathieu Bouchard wrote (and a few other people wrote something similar): $0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent with anything at all. $0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think of $0 as of an implicit creation argument. The name $0 has the same scope of the names $1,$2, in the sense that: in any two places where two $0's would have the same value, two $1's would have the same value. Both are values that are generated at the time of creating the object (semantically I mean, I don't know if it is so in implementation and it is irrelevant) and don't change later. So it is not *so* inconsistent. Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would make it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is with $1,$2 in object boxes. $1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box receives its input and generates its output; they are arguments of the message it receives. The natural object-counterpart of $0 would be a number that is unique to that particular message event (not message box) or message tree, though that would be of little or no use. or wouldn't it? Also, consider the following goal: (*) give direct access to (implicit and explicit) creation arguments ($n) of the patch within a message Making $0 mean the same in a message box than outside it would address goal (*) only for the particular case of $0 and not for n0, and I personally think this isn't an elegant approach. Also, any future attempt to address (*) for n0, would probably result more difficult or have to be more inconsistend if the $0 case has been treated this way. I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning the same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. If there actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason imho to deliberately introduce more inconsistence. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905d=17-8 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list begin:vcard fn:Patrice Colet n:Colet;Patrice adr;dom:;;;Nice;;06100 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:06 32 66 03 57 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hi, the problem is, that $1 (and $) has a different behaviour in objects and in messages. I think that was taken as reason, not to make $0 having the same behaviour in messages, but giving it no behaviour at all and also no alternative solution. but maybe there is another motivation I have not taken into consideration. and I am also not able to implement any of the discussed possibilities. I am just trying to find a lobby for either solution. marius Patrice Colet wrote: You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't the same behavior in object and message boxes. Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit : Mathieu Bouchard wrote (and a few other people wrote something similar): $0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent with anything at all. $0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think of $0 as of an implicit creation argument. The name $0 has the same scope of the names $1,$2, in the sense that: in any two places where two $0's would have the same value, two $1's would have the same value. Both are values that are generated at the time of creating the object (semantically I mean, I don't know if it is so in implementation and it is irrelevant) and don't change later. So it is not *so* inconsistent. Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would make it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is with $1,$2 in object boxes. $1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box receives its input and generates its output; they are arguments of the message it receives. The natural object-counterpart of $0 would be a number that is unique to that particular message event (not message box) or message tree, though that would be of little or no use. or wouldn't it? Also, consider the following goal: (*) give direct access to (implicit and explicit) creation arguments ($n) of the patch within a message Making $0 mean the same in a message box than outside it would address goal (*) only for the particular case of $0 and not for n0, and I personally think this isn't an elegant approach. Also, any future attempt to address (*) for n0, would probably result more difficult or have to be more inconsistend if the $0 case has been treated this way. I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning the same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. If there actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason imho to deliberately introduce more inconsistence. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905d=17-8 ___ 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 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] documentation material for Pd related grants, funds, and prizes
I will pack the gear. I have another friend who is coming too that studied video with me, if he is willing to help, maybe between the two of us we can cover a good bit. I will be in a workshop and doing some other things to learn more about PD but I think this will help me out a lot too. Please send suggestions for subjects/topics and help me make arrangements to connect with the appropriate folks if you can. greg On 8/17/07, Hans-Christoph Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That sounds awesome! I think a little documentary video would be quite nice to have. .hc On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Greg Pond wrote: If there is enough interest to commit this to video, I could do a little shooting- just let me know and I will bring a camera and mic to Montreal. I will be there wed. evening through sat. morning. I am working on another documentary project right now and cannot commit to any reasonable schedule for editing or other post production but can hand over the tapes or work on it when my schedule opens up. I would want someone with more knowledge of the Pd world to help determine who and what to shoot and help with interviewing but I am happy to help out. greg On 8/16/07, marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, the money for Pd topic was already discussed often; pd licenses for universities, several other ways to support the development of pd like conventions, google summer of code and so on. although it never lead to results... I was thinking of funds or prizes like the ars electronica festival. I am still not sure if Pd will fit in one of the categories, but I know that you have to send a DVD about the project/community. maybe the pdconv would be a good place for some interviews and shoot good footage. one principle question for me with submissions is, if someone should be in charge of the pd community? like an official speaker, or a table of people. honestly I think no, but without that it will be more difficult to access some of the money. (does pd development need money at all???...) the more tanglible question is, if there is someone who wants to help getting this done, filming, interviewing, cutting, writing, research. marius. ___ 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 All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated -John Donne ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] documentation material for Pd related grants, funds, and prizes
that is great! maybe pdconv people are also taping some parts? marius. Greg Pond wrote: I will pack the gear. I have another friend who is coming too that studied video with me, if he is willing to help, maybe between the two of us we can cover a good bit. I will be in a workshop and doing some other things to learn more about PD but I think this will help me out a lot too. Please send suggestions for subjects/topics and help me make arrangements to connect with the appropriate folks if you can. greg On 8/17/07, Hans-Christoph Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That sounds awesome! I think a little documentary video would be quite nice to have. .hc On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Greg Pond wrote: If there is enough interest to commit this to video, I could do a little shooting- just let me know and I will bring a camera and mic to Montreal. I will be there wed. evening through sat. morning. I am working on another documentary project right now and cannot commit to any reasonable schedule for editing or other post production but can hand over the tapes or work on it when my schedule opens up. I would want someone with more knowledge of the Pd world to help determine who and what to shoot and help with interviewing but I am happy to help out. greg On 8/16/07, marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, the money for Pd topic was already discussed often; pd licenses for universities, several other ways to support the development of pd like conventions, google summer of code and so on. although it never lead to results... I was thinking of funds or prizes like the ars electronica festival. I am still not sure if Pd will fit in one of the categories, but I know that you have to send a DVD about the project/community. maybe the pdconv would be a good place for some interviews and shoot good footage. one principle question for me with submissions is, if someone should be in charge of the pd community? like an official speaker, or a table of people. honestly I think no, but without that it will be more difficult to access some of the money. (does pd development need money at all???...) the more tanglible question is, if there is someone who wants to help getting this done, filming, interviewing, cutting, writing, research. marius. ___ 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 All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated -John Donne ___ 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
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hello, indeed, in message boxes, if the variable after the dollar sign doesn't match a number corresponding to the number of arguments given at it's input, it outputs directly the variable, if the variable is a number, it ignores the dollarsign, if the number is greater than the number of variables only, it outputs an error message. It just doesn't make easy to find errors. In object boxes such attempts would result into different error messages like $2: argument number out of range, or $-1: bad type, that might help for debugging a patch. For me, dollar sign has exactly the same behavior in objects and messages, it's just objects and messages that don't do the same things, and I would think that $0 would decrease performances reached by message boxes if it would have to give the patch ID instead of ignoring dollar sign like it actually does. marius schebella a écrit : Hi, the problem is, that $1 (and $) has a different behaviour in objects and in messages. I think that was taken as reason, not to make $0 having the same behaviour in messages, but giving it no behaviour at all and also no alternative solution. but maybe there is another motivation I have not taken into consideration. and I am also not able to implement any of the discussed possibilities. I am just trying to find a lobby for either solution. marius Patrice Colet wrote: You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't the same behavior in object and message boxes. Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit : Mathieu Bouchard wrote (and a few other people wrote something similar): $0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent with anything at all. $0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think of $0 as of an implicit creation argument. The name $0 has the same scope of the names $1,$2, in the sense that: in any two places where two $0's would have the same value, two $1's would have the same value. Both are values that are generated at the time of creating the object (semantically I mean, I don't know if it is so in implementation and it is irrelevant) and don't change later. So it is not *so* inconsistent. Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would make it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is with $1,$2 in object boxes. $1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box receives its input and generates its output; they are arguments of the message it receives. The natural object-counterpart of $0 would be a number that is unique to that particular message event (not message box) or message tree, though that would be of little or no use. or wouldn't it? Also, consider the following goal: (*) give direct access to (implicit and explicit) creation arguments ($n) of the patch within a message Making $0 mean the same in a message box than outside it would address goal (*) only for the particular case of $0 and not for n0, and I personally think this isn't an elegant approach. Also, any future attempt to address (*) for n0, would probably result more difficult or have to be more inconsistend if the $0 case has been treated this way. I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning the same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. If there actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason imho to deliberately introduce more inconsistence. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905d=17-8 ___ 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 begin:vcard fn:Patrice Colet n:Colet;Patrice adr;dom:;;;Nice;;06100 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:06 32 66 03 57 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before. Right. For example, http://www.localarcade.com/arcade_art/data/thumbnails/2/q-bert.jpg _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] $0 in messages (was: Re: difference send and using msg with ; )
Mathieu Bouchard wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: even with a combination of charactars $$ ## #$ $# @@ ?? you can't be sure that they are not used before. Right. For example, http://www.localarcade.com/arcade_art/data/thumbnails/2/q-bert.jpg to make it more clear u can't be sure that they are not used before in pd patches, even exluding cases where people intentionally want to break patches. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
patrice, I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing... a dollar sign in an object will get replaced by the argument you give to the patch on creation. lets say you have a patch volume and it multiplies input by $1 [inlet~] | [*~ $1] | [outlet~] then you can create that abstraction in your patch like [volume 0.7] and $1 is replaced by 0.7. but in a [message $1( the $1 is not replaced by 0.7 but by whatever you send to its inlet. that is really not the same behaviour in my opinion. marius. Patrice Colet wrote: Hello, indeed, in message boxes, if the variable after the dollar sign doesn't match a number corresponding to the number of arguments given at it's input, it outputs directly the variable, if the variable is a number, it ignores the dollarsign, if the number is greater than the number of variables only, it outputs an error message. It just doesn't make easy to find errors. In object boxes such attempts would result into different error messages like $2: argument number out of range, or $-1: bad type, that might help for debugging a patch. For me, dollar sign has exactly the same behavior in objects and messages, it's just objects and messages that don't do the same things, and I would think that $0 would decrease performances reached by message boxes if it would have to give the patch ID instead of ignoring dollar sign like it actually does. marius schebella a écrit : Hi, the problem is, that $1 (and $) has a different behaviour in objects and in messages. I think that was taken as reason, not to make $0 having the same behaviour in messages, but giving it no behaviour at all and also no alternative solution. but maybe there is another motivation I have not taken into consideration. and I am also not able to implement any of the discussed possibilities. I am just trying to find a lobby for either solution. marius Patrice Colet wrote: You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't the same behavior in object and message boxes. Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit : Mathieu Bouchard wrote (and a few other people wrote something similar): $0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent with anything at all. $0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think of $0 as of an implicit creation argument. The name $0 has the same scope of the names $1,$2, in the sense that: in any two places where two $0's would have the same value, two $1's would have the same value. Both are values that are generated at the time of creating the object (semantically I mean, I don't know if it is so in implementation and it is irrelevant) and don't change later. So it is not *so* inconsistent. Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would make it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is with $1,$2 in object boxes. $1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box receives its input and generates its output; they are arguments of the message it receives. The natural object-counterpart of $0 would be a number that is unique to that particular message event (not message box) or message tree, though that would be of little or no use. or wouldn't it? Also, consider the following goal: (*) give direct access to (implicit and explicit) creation arguments ($n) of the patch within a message Making $0 mean the same in a message box than outside it would address goal (*) only for the particular case of $0 and not for n0, and I personally think this isn't an elegant approach. Also, any future attempt to address (*) for n0, would probably result more difficult or have to be more inconsistend if the $0 case has been treated this way. I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning the same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. If there actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason imho to deliberately introduce more inconsistence. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6905d=17-8 ___ 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 ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] pd and 64bit Linux again
d'oh... no such tools in Pd. (Was there suc ha thing in Max/FTS? I don't remember it :) cheers M On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 11:07:08AM +0200, Winfried Ritsch wrote: Hello, I've been getting various real-time problems too, but I'm not sure whether to blame the new Pd version, or the 64-bit kernel, or the new machines I'm running it on. Just to make things one bit more compicated, I've updated the included version of portaudio and added optional callback scheduling too -- I'll probably upload changes to CVS after another day or so of testing. just found out that afeter 2hours and more, netconnections between GUI-Instance and PD-DSP become notible long ( 300ms), maybe the networking ? But since one rule is, never guess, measure why, I have a quick question. Is there a profiling tool on oject or message base ? I can remember there was one in Max/FTS, so I can find out the bad objects... ? mfg winfried cheers Miller On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 11:25:17AM +0200, Winfried Ritsch wrote: Am Donnerstag, 16. August 2007 03:59 schrieb Malte Steiner: Miller Puckette wrote: I think most of the 64-bit bugs only got cleaned up for 0.41 (and the test version in CVS is pretty stable at the moment) ok, I give it a try tomorrow and post back here. Thanks for the info, just run 0.41 on 64studio 64 bit and a complex patch (CUBEmixer) just run fine. But the disk access makes a DAC-slip on the 2.6.22 realtime kernel, much worse than on non-realtimekernel. Is there anything to adjust on the kernel site to get better disk access scheduling ? mfg winfried -- -- - ao.Univ.Prof. DI Winfried Ritsch - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://iem.at/ritsch - Institut fuer Elektronische Musik und Akustik - University of Music and Dramatic Art Graz - Tel. ++43-316-389-3510 (3170) Fax ++43-316-389-3171 - PGP-ID 69617A69 (see keyserver http://wwwkeys.eu.gpg.net/) -- ___ 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 ___ 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
[PD] Webcam problem
hi list I'm having this problem when I start PD : GEM: using AltiVec optimization [pix_videoDarwin]: pix_videoDarwin: height 320 width 240 [pix_videoDarwin]: pix_videoDarwin: could not make new SG channnel error -9405 [pix_videoDarwin]: pix_videoDarwin: height 320 width 240 [pix_videoDarwin]: pix_videoDarwin: could not make new SG channnel error -9405 [pix_videoDarwin]: pix_videoDarwin: height 320 width 240 [pix_videoDarwin]: pix_videoDarwin: could not make new SG channnel error -9405 expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License Anyone know what might be causing this error?? I'm using 3 webcams and it worked fine earlier on my machine but now I have to use another machine and the DIALOG window will not load, to let me access the webcams .. I'm using Pd version 0.39.2-extended-rc3 Any ideas??? Dave ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hallo, Patrice Colet hat gesagt: // Patrice Colet wrote: You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't the same behavior in object and message boxes. Don't know if it's a good reason, but: In a message box, dollar variables get replaced by looking at (the elements of) incoming messages. In object boxes, dollars are substituted by looking at the context of the patch's canvas: If the patch was called as an abstraction, its arguments replace the dollars, otherwise default zeros are inserted. A canvas has an additional property in the unique identifier $0. However messages reaching a message box do not carry such an unique identifier, as $0 is a property of the canvas, not a property of the incoming message: There is no $0 in messages, there's only a $0 in a canvas. An effect of this is, that there's no $0 in message boxes, but there's a $0 in object boxes. So to get $0 into a message, you first have to collect it from the canvas by using some kind of object box (float $0, symbol $0-x,...) then make a message out of it (1002 or symbol 1002-x) and then send that message to the message box. I guess, the reason, why in Pd $0 and the conversion from canvas properties to a message are not directly included in a message box, is just that it would obscure the difference between canvas and message properties, that's in effect now, so it's more or less an aesthetic reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in messages to # shows, that also has its problems: Should the difference be made clearer by using different variable identifiers? Or should users be expected to be insightful enough after a while to understand the difference without having to type different variable-characters for messages and objects as in Max? (Personally I prefer that both messages and object boxes use a dollarsign for simplicity, but I also know from teaching workshops, that many newbies get confused by this. But then, they also confuse the difference between subpatches and abstractions ... it goes away with time.) Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Frank Barknecht wrote: reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in messages to # no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments! for reasons of backwards compatibitily. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: Frank Barknecht wrote: reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in messages to # no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments! for reasons of backwards compatibitily. For reasons of backwards compatibility you'd keep $- the same because if you write $- it currently stays $- ... if you are going to selectively drop compatibility, you ought to explain why and how, e.g. because $- is rarer than # ... marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
instead of @ # ? we could also use a prefix like this.: this.$0, this.$1, this.$2 for messages. just a suggestion. m. marius schebella wrote: Mathieu Bouchard wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: Frank Barknecht wrote: reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in messages to # no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments! for reasons of backwards compatibitily. For reasons of backwards compatibility you'd keep $- the same because if you write $- it currently stays $- ... if you are going to selectively drop compatibility, you ought to explain why and how, e.g. because $- is rarer than # ... in old patches you have $1 $2 $3 in messages and $0 $1 $2 in objects presumtion: you don't just simply want to add $0-feature to messages simply because it would be inconsequent, or difficult to understand for newbies... therefor you want to differentiate between creation and message arguments. giving one of them a new appearance, but still making old patches work. case 1 (bad): you have $0 $1 #1 $2 #2 $3 #3 in messages and $0 $1 $2 $3 in objects. (that's bad because, then u still have the confusion of $0 and $- in messages, exactly what you did not want case 2 (better): you have #0 #1 #2 #3 #4 $1 $2 $3 $4 in messages (all meaning different things) and $0 or #0, $1 or #1, $2 or #2 in objects. (#- the new style, but for backwards compatibilty still allowing the old $- style) hope this is clear enough. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Mathieu Bouchard wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: Frank Barknecht wrote: reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in messages to # no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments! for reasons of backwards compatibitily. For reasons of backwards compatibility you'd keep $- the same because if you write $- it currently stays $- ... if you are going to selectively drop compatibility, you ought to explain why and how, e.g. because $- is rarer than # ... in old patches you have $1 $2 $3 in messages and $0 $1 $2 in objects presumtion: you don't just simply want to add $0-feature to messages simply because it would be inconsequent, or difficult to understand for newbies... therefor you want to differentiate between creation and message arguments. giving one of them a new appearance, but still making old patches work. case 1 (bad): you have $0 $1 #1 $2 #2 $3 #3 in messages and $0 $1 $2 $3 in objects. (that's bad because, then u still have the confusion of $0 and $- in messages, exactly what you did not want case 2 (better): you have #0 #1 #2 #3 #4 $1 $2 $3 $4 in messages (all meaning different things) and $0 or #0, $1 or #1, $2 or #2 in objects. (#- the new style, but for backwards compatibilty still allowing the old $- style) hope this is clear enough. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] documentation material for Pd related grants, funds, and prizes
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: while any pure-data dev can add their code to Pd-extended. You could say we are more Bazaar than Mr. Bazaar because the Pd Bazaar has a hand in the decision making. :D I think that you're confusing people. «The Cathedral and The Buzzword» was written by ESR. Linus didn't start the Bazaar theory: ESR came up with that as observation (and perhaps some imagination). I don't think that the Linux kernel project epitomises Bazaar-style of development, it was simply an early example of very distributed development. You can't take that and judge it by rules that it doesn't try to follow in a game that it doesn't try to play. Real bazaars are more like shopping centres than like that kumbaya idea of let's make a little place for everybody and everybody will be happy. It's not quite like http://www.cinemapassion.com/covers_temp/covers/Les_Calinours_a_vos_souhaits-14322506042006.jpg Perhaps we could have a walk together to Marché Jean-Talon and contemplate how much of it can be called a Bazaar and then ask the commerçants one by one how much they get charged for just taking up space in the market. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hello, Frank Barknecht a écrit : However messages reaching a message box do not carry such an unique identifier, as $0 is a property of the canvas, not a property of the incoming message: There is no $0 in messages, there's only a $0 in a canvas. An effect of this is, that there's no $0 in message boxes, but there's a $0 in object boxes. So to get $0... Ciao I was just wondering why $0 wouldn't be implemented as a message property. begin:vcard fn:Patrice Colet n:Colet;Patrice adr;dom:;;;Nice;;06100 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:06 32 66 03 57 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hallo, Patrice Colet hat gesagt: // Patrice Colet wrote: Hello, Frank Barknecht a écrit : However messages reaching a message box do not carry such an unique identifier, as $0 is a property of the canvas, not a property of the incoming message: There is no $0 in messages, there's only a $0 in a canvas. An effect of this is, that there's no $0 in message boxes, but there's a $0 in object boxes. So to get $0... Ciao I was just wondering why $0 wouldn't be implemented as a message property. You mean as a property of a message or as a property of a message box? (In my previous mail, I tried to make a difference between both and tried to write message box where I was talking about a message box and only message, where general messages were meant. I might have made some mistakes during that, though.) A message (like list 10 20 30) doesn't know anything about the thing called $0 with canvases. Messages aren't bound to a certain canvas, they can be sent freely between various cancas scopes with different $0s. Messages do know about their $2, which is just another name for their second item. For list 10 20 30 this message's $2 would be: 20. But I don't really see, how something like $0 for messages (not message boxes!) would make any sense. For message boxes however one *could* define, that $0 should be replaced by the value of $0 taken from the canvas, the message box sits in, as soon the box is activated (by click or an incoming message). However this would somehow change the direct relationship messages and message boxes currently have: It would rely on the fact, that message boxes also are a kind of object in a canvas and don't just represent a Pd message as objects exchange them. In the end, a message box wouldn't be very different from a fancy, clickable [makefilename] or [list ...] object. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Frank Barknecht wrote: For message boxes however one *could* define, that $0 should be replaced by the value of $0 taken from the canvas, the message box sits in, as soon the box is activated (by click or an incoming message). However this would somehow change the direct relationship messages and message boxes currently have: then I think the only solution is to write a new object: the message object :). we already have bang as a message and bang as a widget and we have two numbers, so why not also have a new message object, clickable and with all features one wants. marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Frank Barknecht a écrit : Hallo, It would rely on the fact, that message boxes also are a kind of object in a canvas and don't just represent a Pd message as objects exchange them. In the end, a message box wouldn't be very different from a fancy, clickable [makefilename] or [list ...] object. Ciao Hi, You've perfectly got what I've been thinking about, thank you for making this clear. begin:vcard fn:Patrice Colet n:Colet;Patrice adr;dom:;;;Nice;;06100 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;cell:06 32 66 03 57 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: instead of @ # ? we could also use a prefix like this.: this.$0, this.$1, this.$2 for messages. Though with 0.40 dollar substition was allowed in the middle of a symbol as well, not only at the beginning, so this wouldn't work without conflicts. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: Frank Barknecht wrote: reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in messages to # no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments! for reasons of backwards compatibitily. Seems I've confused some things here, sorry. So what you propose is to allow usage of all canvas properties like creation arguments and $0 in message boxes as well? I think, then instead of changing the message box, a new GUI object would be more appropriate and even more backwards-compatible. Something like [msg ...] which would be like a fancy, clickable makefilename/list/cnv/bng bastard similar to what I mentioned in another mail. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] strange canvas behaviour
Hello, I found a strange behaviour in canvas object. I don't know if it it operational system related, but anyway It's happening here and could happen with others. The situation is: When I send a symbol # to a canvas label (with the intention of use this as a panel) it's converted for the symbol $ ... someting like: C# | ; cnv_test label $1 / it results in canvas printing: C$ there's a patch attached with an example. my system is Linux (Ubuntu Feisty - Gnome Desktop) kernel 2.6.20-26-generic locale pt_BR thanks glerm strange_canvas.pd Description: Binary data ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: instead of @ # ? we could also use a prefix like this.: this.$0, this.$1, this.$2 for messages. Though with 0.40 dollar substition was allowed in the middle of a symbol as well, not only at the beginning, so this wouldn't work without conflicts. Ciao you mean because it would be difficult/impossible to program such a feature or because so many people are already using this.$- strings in their daily patchwork? marius. ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
yes, seems our mails were crossing each other somewhere in the jungle of mail delivery... :) marius. Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote: Frank Barknecht wrote: reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in messages to # no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments! for reasons of backwards compatibitily. Seems I've confused some things here, sorry. So what you propose is to allow usage of all canvas properties like creation arguments and $0 in message boxes as well? I think, then instead of changing the message box, a new GUI object would be more appropriate and even more backwards-compatible. Something like [msg ...] which would be like a fancy, clickable makefilename/list/cnv/bng bastard similar to what I mentioned in another mail. Ciao ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] pd and 64bit Linux again
Miller Puckette wrote: d'oh... no such tools in Pd. (Was there suc ha thing in Max/FTS? I don't remember it :) I remember a performance by Ben Bogart on last years Piksel tapping pds internal network communication and listen to its heartbeat, maybe that can be abused? Ben? Cheers, Malte -- Malte Steiner media art + development -www.block4.com- next concert: Elektronengehirn 30.8. ICMC 2007, Copenhagen, Denmark ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: $0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think of $0 as of an implicit creation argument. The name $0 has the same scope of the names $1,$2, yes. Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would make it *a lot* more inconsistent with $1,$2 in messages than $0 is with $1,$2 in object boxes. scope-wise, yes. I once recommended that the selector of a message be interpreted as $0 in a messagebox, because this has the same scope as the message arguments, even though when following this logic it means that objectboxes' $0 ought to be the name of the class the abstraction was created as (before any path lookups and following symlinks, but after any $-substitutions in that name). $1,$2... in messages are evaluated at the time the message box receives its input and generates its output; they are arguments of the message it receives. The natural object-counterpart of $0 would be a number that is unique to that particular message event (not message box) or message tree, though that would be of little or no use. or wouldn't it? Right... messages are way too volatile for this to be of any use (beyond statistics about the execution itself, but that's the job of a profiler) I am personally strongly against implementing $0 in messages meaning the same as $0 outside them. It would introduce further inconsistence. If there actually is some inconsistence now, it is not a good reason imho to deliberately introduce more inconsistence. I don't know... when you have a messagebox, the $ arguments are processed in the context of the incoming message but the message has a default receiver that is the messresponder (a hidden object that relays to the outlet of the messagebox). In an objectbox, the $ arguments are processed in the context of the enclosing patch and the default receiver is the objectmaker (an object whose methods are the constructors of all possible object classes). I can't find an analogy like W is to X what Y is to Z about it. Is this inconsistence or not? Is it just the way things have to be like? If there is no sensible use of $0 in messageboxes, then is it less inconsistent to reuse $0 for something else, than if it were an actual contradiction? Aren't those two different levels of inconsistency? Does this distinction matter? _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] strange canvas behaviour
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, glerm soares wrote: I found a strange behaviour in canvas object. I don't know if it it operational system related, but anyway It's happening here and could happen with others. The situation is: When I send a symbol # to a canvas label (with the intention of use this as a panel) it's converted for the symbol $ ... I wrote about this today already. This is because $ is rewritten as # instead of being rewritten as \$ as it should. The # way involves extra code that is both causing your problem and is unnecessary because \$ already gets converted to $ automatically. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote: for messages and objects as in Max? (Personally I prefer that both messages and object boxes use a dollarsign for simplicity, but I also know from teaching workshops, that many newbies get confused by this. But then, they also confuse the difference between subpatches and abstractions ... it goes away with time.) Simplicity of the language gets balanced by complexity of what you write in it. It is not a zero-sum game: a little less complexity in the language means a lot more complexity in the patches. In the end, it's a loss. Unlike the difference between subpatches and abstractions, at least part of the complexity of not having abstraction $ in messageboxes does not go away with time. It makes clumps around messageboxes and they stick around there because they are necessary to compensate for a lack of complexity in pd. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] [PD-announce] Party! Congrès PureData C onvention 07
(English follows) Party du Congrès PureData 07! Ne manquez le party du Congrès dans le loft industriel de l'Espace B, avec les meilleurs ingrédients : du monde cool, des djs et de l'alcool pas cher. Passez-le mot ! Samedi 25 août 22h à l'Espace B. 5$ à l'entrée, gratuit pour les participants du Congrès Espace B 6545 avenue Durocher, Suite 401 Montréal Blague pour les geeks de PureData : Venez rencontrer des gens sympathiques en chair et en os, en dehors de l'irc #dataflow ! --- PureData Convention 07 Party! Don't miss out, bring your friends, we provide the best party ingredients : cool people, djs, cheap booze! PureData geek joke : Hang out with the nice people from #dataflow outside of irc! Have a totally [OT] conversation with people off the pd-list! Saturday August 25th,10pm @ Espace B 5$ at the door, free for the Convention participants Espace B 6545, Durocher Ave, Suite 401 Montreal Martin Renaud Responsable des communications L'Œuvre ouverte | Congrès PureData Convention 07 www.pure-data.ca Tél. : (514)796-4770 Courriel : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ PD-announce mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-announce ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] strange canvas behaviour
2007/8/17, Mathieu Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, glerm soares wrote: I found a strange behaviour in canvas object. I don't know if it it operational system related, but anyway It's happening here and could happen with others. The situation is: When I send a symbol # to a canvas label (with the intention of use this as a panel) it's converted for the symbol $ ... I wrote about this today already. This is because $ is rewritten as # instead of being rewritten as \$ as it should. The # way involves extra code that is both causing your problem and is unnecessary because \$ already gets converted to $ automatically. It should be reported as a bug? thanks glerm _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] strange canvas behaviour
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, glerm soares wrote: 2007/8/17, Mathieu Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I wrote about this today already. This is because $ is rewritten as # instead of being rewritten as \$ as it should. The # way involves extra code that is both causing your problem and is unnecessary because \$ already gets converted to $ automatically. It should be reported as a bug? a bug according to whom? it was deliberately designed and written like that. and... reported by whom? _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] difference send and using msg with ;
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: then I think the only solution is to write a new object: the message object :). we already have bang as a message and bang as a widget and we have two numbers, so why not also have a new message object, clickable and with all features one wants. marius. Messageboxes are already objects. It's just that the constructor has been hidden, such that if you try to make a [message] object, it fails, even though the class is truly named message. It is because class names don't matter, only constructor names matter, and they usually correspond to class names, but not always. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] strange canvas behaviour
2007/8/17, Mathieu Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, glerm soares wrote: 2007/8/17, Mathieu Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I wrote about this today already. This is because $ is rewritten as # instead of being rewritten as \$ as it should. The # way involves extra code that is both causing your problem and is unnecessary because \$ already gets converted to $ automatically. It should be reported as a bug? a bug according to whom? it was deliberately designed and written like that. and... reported by whom? well, IMHO, If I want to print a F# in the cnv object is not possible by design? Is that what you mean? So maybe It's a cnv object limitation, maybe It's a PD symbol treatment limitation. Will this happen with other GUI objects, like printing this A# in a GEM window for example? Maybe we couldn't call this a bug, but it's a big limitation since I have to use # to represent sharp notes in ocidental notation. As far as I know music is an important issue for PD... Wish I could help more if I could touch those codes, but I'm a newbie programmer... So all I can do is to report this... limitation(?) hope this report can help something, thanx mathieu, salut, glerm ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] documentation material for Pd related grants, funds, and prizes
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote: people. honestly I think no, but without that it will be more difficult to access some of the money. (does pd development need money at all???...) Money is only one necessity. There is also need for time, skill, planning, methodology, determination, concentration, faith, purpose, meaning, motivation, leadership, allies, and a lot of desire. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] pdp2gem and pix_roll not compatible ?
Hello list, I have a serioud problem with objects [pdp2gem] and [pix_roll]. Please have a look at my patch attached at this mail. When i click on 'create' message to activate the gem window, Gem crash on MacPro IntelXeon - Macos 10.4.9 - PD 0.39.2-extended-rc3 (GEM ver. 0.91-cvs). The same patch on Powerbook G4 - Macos 10.4.10 - PD 0.39.3-extended-rc5 (GEM ver. 0.91-cvs) output : 'Error: GEM: Someone sent a bogus pointer tu copy2ImageStruct' but gem doesn't crash. Any idea about this bug ? thx. Jack ajeter.pd Description: Binary data ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
