Hi Felipe,
I don't know how many users use cs or extract. I guess if we change names,
there's a possibility we might break user's scripts or tools if they depend
on those names. On the other hand, if you're doing renaming for extract
and no one has really complained, I suppose changing cs won't
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Steven Yi wrote:
> I don't know how many users use cs or extract. I guess if we change names,
> there's a possibility we might break user's scripts or tools if they depend
> on those names. On the other hand, if you're doing renaming for extract and
> no on
Hi John,
Shall we rename then to csound_cs?
steven
On Mon Nov 24 2014 at 11:09:26 AM jpff wrote:
> I would prefer a simpe renaming, despite the pain of completions in the
> shell. I do not think we guarantee scripts, just API and csd/orc/sco
> files.
> ==John
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Felipe S
I would prefer a simpe renaming, despite the pain of completions in the
shell. I do not think we guarantee scripts, just API and csd/orc/sco
files.
==John
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Steven Yi wrote:
I don't know how many users use cs o
On 24 Nov 2014 13:39, "jpff" wrote:
>
> I would prefer a simpe renaming, despite the pain of completions in the shell.
> I do not think we guarantee scripts, just API and csd/orc/sco files.
> ==John
If the renaming is done upstream, we probably can pick a better name
than csound_cs :). The purp
