On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:17:57AM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote: > the question is: how should they be included? should they be included as > they are now, with the gui and their dependency on the netpd-framework? > or would it make more sense to strip everything off to get a working > subset of abstractions, that can be used in a more flexible way? as far > as i understand the concept of pd-extended as a collection of > abstractions and externals (read: collection of tools/utility rather > than a collection of examples), i'd vote for the latter, though that > would involve a lot more work. > > i'd rather do not include the abstractions/patches myself and i'd rather > do not make the decision on how they should be included. but i'd be > willing to deliver stripped off abstractions with helpfiles from my own > netpd-patches, so someone else could could include/organize them in > pd-extended.
One thing that would be cool for us to come up with is some way to abstract the core, and gui of abstractions separately in such a way that they could be used in multiple different state saving/communication paradigms. For example, if I could make one abstraction for the s-abstractions collection and then have the user be able to choose whether it: 1. saves using sssad, has a GOP gui 2. saves using memento, has a GOP gui 3. integrates with netpd, has netpd style gui This could just be a pipe dream, but then again I could never have imagined someone creating something as amazing as netpd or sssad in Pure Data alone. Best, Chris. ------------------- http://mccormick.cx _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list