[PD] [PD-announce] Pd 0.49-0test4 released

To Pd-announce: Pd version 0.49-0test4 is available on http://msp.ucsd.edu/software.htm or (source only) via github: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data cheers Miller ___ Pd-announce mailing list pd-annou...@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.in

Re: [PD] Unnecessary scrollbars since 0.49

Try this as a small test: add a new line with "return" after the "update idle tasks" on line 302 of tcl/pd_bindings.tcl. This should force the window the create it's size, then ignore checking the scrollbar until the next scroll event. What might be happening is a delay between creating the win

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

thanks Miller, it works perfectly! Antoine Rousseau http://www.metalu.net __ http://www.metaluachahuter.com/ Le dim. 23 sept. 2018 à 00:37, Miller Puckette a écrit : > Well, I ended up simply reverting to the old beha

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Well, I ended up simply reverting to the old behavior but leaving a hook in so that users can specifically ask only to open a patch once. cheers M On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:10:01AM +0200, Antoine Rousseau wrote: > Yes I realized that. So it should be something more specific. > Why not a wider sc

Re: [PD] Some patches broken in 0.49test3

Hi Roman, On 22/09/18 23:19, Roman Haefeli wrote: Hi Sorry, need to report something probably more serious. Some of my patches trigger messages like the following: (Tcl) INVALID COMMAND NAME: invalid command name ".x558795b0c400.c" while executing ".x558795b0c400.c itemconfigure 558795b6

Re: [PD] Some patches broken in 0.49test3

yes, this is issue #488 reported by claude. Antoine Rousseau http://www.metalu.net __ http://www.metaluachahuter.com/ Le dim. 23 sept. 2018 à 00:19, Roman Haefeli a écrit : > Hi > > Sorry, need to report something pro

[PD] Some patches broken in 0.49test3

Hi Sorry, need to report something probably more serious. Some of my patches trigger messages like the following: (Tcl) INVALID COMMAND NAME: invalid command name ".x558795b0c400.c" while executing ".x558795b0c400.c itemconfigure 558795b682c0LABEL -font {{DejaVu Sans Mono} -11 bold}" ("

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Yes I realized that. So it should be something more specific. Why not a wider scope object, like [pdconfig], that would take "once" as an argument? Antoine Rousseau http://www.metalu.net __ http://www.metaluachahuter.com/

Re: [PD] Unnecessary scrollbars since 0.49

On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 00:06 +0200, Dan Wilcox wrote: > *sigh* This is really a constant battle. I added a rather > overcomplicated method to fix this in 0.48 and found a much simpler > way to do it later on, or so I thought. The problem always comes down > to the scrollbar logic being triggered whe

Re: [PD] Unnecessary scrollbars since 0.49

*sigh* This is really a constant battle. I added a rather overcomplicated method to fix this in 0.48 and found a much simpler way to do it later on, or so I thought. The problem always comes down to the scrollbar logic being triggered when the window is the wrong size while it's still opening.

[PD] moving windows in 0.49

Hi Another regression I just observed: When sending 'vis 0, vis 1' to a canvas repeatedly, the window keeps moving to the top left of the screen. The offset is only a few pixels in each dimension. . I observe this with 0.49test3 (updated and compiled just now) on Ubuntu 18.04 (Gnome). This happens

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

On Sat, 2018-09-22 at 23:29 +0200, Antoine Rousseau wrote: > Of course [once] would be much better than [lock] [once] is taken by iemlib. Not that I think every library in existence should be considered regarding name conflicts when introducing new objects to Pd, but I feel that [once] is in w

[PD] Unnecessary scrollbars since 0.49

Hi It seems there is a slight regression in the logic that decides whether to show the scrollbars or not. According to my experience, the behaviour in 0.48 was quite good and now sometimes when opening a canvas, scrollbars are drawn when none are needed, even for empty windows. When editing the pa

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Of course [once] would be much better than [lock] Antoine Rousseau http://www.metalu.net __ http://www.metaluachahuter.com/ Le sam. 22 sept. 2018 à 23:28, Antoine Rousseau a écrit : > A bit trickier solution would

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

I guess the least annoying of all would be to revery back to the way it was, and then to add an "open-unique" message to pd for anyone who wants this behavior (apparently not many do). cheers Miller On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:26:48PM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Sat, 2018-09-22 at 23:11 +0200

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

A bit trickier solution would be to add the possibility to lock a given patch, i.e forbid to open it twice. This could be either via an additional object (e.g [lock]), or a GUI property that would be saved into the patch file, like the font size. This would require that, when a patch is requested

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

On Sat, 2018-09-22 at 23:11 +0200, Christof Ressi wrote: > OTOH, I kind of agree with the others that I never thought it was a > problem that you can open the same patch several times... Me neither. I do think it should be allowed one way or the other. Having to use a flag for it (probably the le

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Christof Ressi wrote: I can imagine it being it a GUI preference. maybe there could be a dialog asking you if you really want to open the same patch again with the usual 'yes', 'no' + 'don't ask me again' (saving your selection in the GUI preferences). mmh, i for one really don't like the id

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

I can imagine it being it a GUI preference. maybe there could be a dialog asking you if you really want to open the same patch again with the usual 'yes', 'no' + 'don't ask me again' (saving your selection in the GUI preferences). OTOH, I kind of agree with the others that I never thought it wa

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

1) ugly workaround, make symlinks to the same patch so it can be opened (and then managed) via different filenames or directory names) 2) I could add a message to pd or perhaps a startup flag, or both, to switch the behavior on and off. 3) (I doubt this is a good idea) I could make it "0.48 c

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

On 9/22/18 6:26 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > Oh dear, I was worried this might cause problems. > > The rationale is that, especially for beginning users but often for > experienced ones, it is rarely desirable to have two copies of, for > instance, the test tone patch running at once. (An example

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Sorry for reporting this so late in the test phase. One thing that surprises me is, why would it be considered an accident to open more than one instance of the same patch? This depends on the purpose of a patch or project. For the audio test it makes no sense indeed to open more than one. On the o

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

> > when trying to load a patch twice, pd becomes unresponsive > I confirm that; whatever the decision, this doesn't seem to be a desirable behavior...;-) Antoine Rousseau http://www.metalu.net __ http://www.metaluachahuter.com/

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

I have to say I like the new feature and being able to avoid loading the same patch twice, even as an expert, so I guess a flag or something that allows us to configure this is fine. Em sáb, 22 de set de 2018 às 13:30, Miller Puckette escreveu: > Ah, yes, a fourth option: have a new "pd really-o

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

I support IOhannes' idea of distinguishing between opening from the menu and opening from the OS file system, and of asking the user if they want a new instance. Another case for multiple patches is this: the user is editing a patch, but worries that he has misplaced a connection or damaged it

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Ah, yes, a fourth option: have a new "pd really-open" message to open a file without checking if it's a duplicate. cheers M On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 06:18:42PM +0200, IOhannes m zm??lnig wrote: > On 9/22/18 3:17 PM, katja wrote: > > Much to my alarm, Pd 0.49test3 prevents loading multiple instance

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Oh dear, I was worried this might cause problems. The rationale is that, especially for beginning users but often for experienced ones, it is rarely desirable to have two copies of, for instance, the test tone patch running at once. (An example from my own usage is that I have a "play" shell comm

Re: [PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

On 9/22/18 3:17 PM, katja wrote: > Much to my alarm, Pd 0.49test3 prevents loading multiple instances of > a patch, and release notes tell us that this is on purpose. funnily, i recently worked on a related regression where double-clicking on a Pd-patch (in your favourite Windows exploder) would

[PD] multiple instances of a patch forbidden in 0.49, why?

Much to my alarm, Pd 0.49test3 prevents loading multiple instances of a patch, and release notes tell us that this is on purpose. Moreover, when trying to load a patch twice, pd becomes unresponsive in some cases. The new behavior is a show stopper for projects that rely on, or benefit from, loadi

Re: [PD] help with oscillator modulation

Carl wrote: hi Oliver, i followed a hunch and patched up a version that has a full wave rectifier before the osc1 mod input. this sounds closer to the example. it sounds even nicer with soft clipping of the mod signal before scaling. oh, and this signal gets added to the pitch input of the os

Re: [PD] acoustic feedback removal

I will take a look thanks. I was thinking maybe the adaptive objects could be of use, as feedback removal is not so different from echo cancellation and I used them before with good results. No idea though... From: Martin Hiendl Sent: Saturday, September 22, 201

Re: [PD] type size of a commentary

On Fri, 2018-09-21 at 16:37 +, Liam Goodacre wrote: > There are 3 options that I can think of: > > 1. Use regular comments and change the font size in the Edit menu > (but this will change the text size of all objects as well). 1a. Use regular comment inside a GOP'd abstraction where you

Re: [PD] acoustic feedback removal

Maybe William Brent's [dryUp~] external could be of use..? On Sat, Sep 22, 2018, 08:55 Jeppi Jeppi wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a laptop running a pd-patch which processes the audio coming from a > mike and sends it back to a loudspeaker located rather close to that > microphone. A certain degree