hi,
is there any progress in integrating cyclone into vanilla?
I grab this list of objectclasses from
http://suita.chopin.edu.pl/~czaja/miXed/externs/cyclone.html and hope it
is current. I guess there are some problematic classes like counter,
Append, Clip, prepend... and some are redundant. but
if someone built abstractions with the same name, is it likely that they
have different behaviour?
Some of the signal objects would have to have a different behavior
because of how [inlet~] works. If [inlet~] could take an optional
float arg to output a constant sig (tough because it takes
Matt Barber wrote:
[inlet~] promotes float
messages already, but it's very buggy in canvases that have an [inlet]
to the left of [inlet~](s).
err.. very buggy? why?
no, scratch that, actually; i don't want to know. i'm sure it will lead to
wtf's.
Try moving the [inlet] and the [outlet] around in different
combinations in the attached abstraction [weirdinlet] -- I included a
test patch as well. See if you get freakish bugs when trying to set
the [inlet~]s with floats.
Matt
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Damian Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange,
Must not have saved the [outlet] in the abstraction originally. Sorry
about that -- new ones attached.
M
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Matt Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try moving the [inlet] and the [outlet] around in different
combinations in the attached abstraction
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
honestly, I think not many people used it...
I ran
grep -R pow~ *
in my pd-directories and found only two patches (of 1+) besides the
helppatch for pow~, that use it. nusmuk for distortion.pd, tb for
sigmoid_booster~.pd
Enrique Erne wrote:
or [biquad~ 0 0 0 1]
Miller Puckette wrote:
I believe z~ is just rzero~ 0.
no.
both of them are equivalent to [z~ 1]
you could also argue that [f] is just the same as [0(
:-)
fgmasdr
IOhannes
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 17:23 +0200, Thomas Grill wrote:
Me for one, i have really missed pow~ or abs~ but i have been missing
many other things.
I don't see the necessity for the objects you mentioned when they can
be built as abstractions using expr~ within seconds.
But isn't expr~ an
frank,
you are right that the importer would probably use pd's internal pow~,
but from my own experience I can only say max and pd are becoming less
and less compatible, I ported a lot of patches and also big patches, I
always did this by hand, because there are too many things that can go
I don't really think PD-Max compatibility should factor much into
decisions about improving PD, especially when it would force 'untidy'
concessions on the part of PD to facilitate awkward max paradigms
(like right to left execution order, etc.).
If [1]**[2] (where [1] and [2] are inlets)
just asking, but does ANYONE actually import max patches into pd?
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
hard off wrote:
just asking, but does ANYONE actually import max patches into pd?
people want to do that all the time, so if we had a conversion system,
then I guess people would use it. (right now it does not work well
enough to be usable). but the same goes for pd to java, pd to C++. and
it
Hallo,
another point to take into account are arguments: What should pow 2
output?
Ciao
--
Frank
Julian Peterson hat gesagt: // Julian Peterson wrote:
I don't really think PD-Max compatibility should factor much into
decisions about improving PD, especially when it would force 'untidy'
Hallo,
hard off hat gesagt: // hard off wrote:
just asking, but does ANYONE actually import max patches into pd?
The whole RTC-lib was (im)ported with Cyclone.
Ciao
--
Frank
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:52:43 -0400
Julian Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you write a PD patch, you can give it to anyone with a reasonably
modern computer; they will be able to download PD on their machine/OS
and execute with full rights and privileges.
For the last 2 years I have
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:39:04 +0200
Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallo,
another point to take into account are arguments: What should pow 2
output?
Well, presuming we do keep compatability [pow~ 2] will continue to behave as
it does in Cyclone.
For the proposed intrinsic [**~ ]
OMG, is it really true that pow and pow~ are reversed from each other in
Max (and hence cyclone)!? That's genuinely strange - and if it's true, I'd
definitely make pow~ act as the present pow (left inlet raiesed to right inlet
as a power) and just print out a warning for a year or two.
cheers
M
Miller Puckette wrote:
OMG, is it really true that pow and pow~ are reversed from each other in
Max (and hence cyclone)!? That's genuinely strange - and if it's true, I'd
definitely make pow~ act as the present pow (left inlet raiesed to right inlet
as a power) and just print out a warning
On 25/04/2008, at 17.06, Miller Puckette wrote:
OMG, is it really true that pow and pow~ are reversed from each
other in
Max (and hence cyclone)!?
no (the assumption in the above is not true). according to the
reference manuals downloadable from C74's website [0], pow and pow~
are
On 25/04/2008, at 17.37, marius schebella wrote:
in max (4.6) you get
[6\
|
[pow 2]
|
[36\
That is odd. It matches the example in their reference manuals but
not the text unless base and exponent momentarily means something
else while reading that text.
Steffen Juul wrote:
On 25/04/2008, at 17.37, marius schebella wrote:
in max (4.6) you get
[6\
|
[pow 2]
|
[36\
That is odd. It matches the example in their reference manuals but not
the text unless base and exponent momentarily means something else
while reading that text.
Hallo,
Miller Puckette hat gesagt: // Miller Puckette wrote:
OMG, is it really true that pow and pow~ are reversed from each other in
Max (and hence cyclone)!?
Not in Max, but in Cyclone, which uses the [pow] from Pd, which is
reverse from the [pow] in Max.
According to the Max 4.6 manual
Steffen Juul wrote:
On 25/04/2008, at 17.37, marius schebella wrote:
in max (4.6) you get
[6\
|
[pow 2]
|
[36\
That is odd. It matches the example in their reference manuals but not
the text unless base and exponent momentarily means something else
while reading that text.
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:37 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
in max (4.6) you get
[sig~ 6]
|
[pow~ 2]
|
[snapshot~]
|
[64\
Same with cyclone/pow~
Jamie
--
www.postlude.co.uk
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and
convolution
patch. Still, if others are used to the [z~] in zexy, it might be
better to go with that model if it's going to be implemented in
vanilla.
Thanks,
Matt
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:17:40 -0700
From: Miller Puckette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PD] Cyclone in vanilla?
To: pd-list
or [biquad~ 0 0 0 1]
eni
Miller Puckette wrote:
I believe z~ is just rzero~ 0.
cheers
Miller
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:24:34AM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Matt Barber hat gesagt: // Matt Barber wrote:
Actually, for those of us who insist on vanilla and do everything with
Hallo,
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It seems the cleanest solution would be to just include the objects
that Andy has pointed out. Otherwise, I think adding the whole of
cyclone will be opening up a big can of worms.
Cyclone has a lot of redundant
Am 24.04.2008 um 06:21 schrieb marius schebella:
record conflicts (?) with record from xsample
Why should it? the name o the object is xrecord~
gr~~~
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It seems the cleanest solution would be to just include the objects
that Andy has pointed out. Otherwise, I think adding the whole of
cyclone will be opening up a big can of worms.
mmh!! worms! the U.N. food and agriculture organization estimates 1,400
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:01:26 -0400
marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always wanted to try chocolate ants, but you can't get them
round here, not even in Southall.
http://www.lazyboneuk.com/store/pro501.html
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It seems the cleanest solution would be
DIY! You can make your own chocolate ants!
.hc
On Apr 24, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:01:26 -0400
marius schebella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always wanted to try chocolate ants, but you can't get them
round here, not even in Southall.
btw, are all pow~ objects reversed? right inlet^left inlet?
marius.
Andy Farnell wrote:
Did I read that Cyclone is to be incorporated into vanilla Pd?
Having discovered too late that [pow~] is not part of vanilla
I am about to remove the constraint of using vanilla Pd for
the synthetic
Yep. What is to be done about that? Should we keep
to the conventions of vanilla and Pd generally by
changing that?
I am torn on this. I would have a lot of rewriting to do
but would like to see conventions observed.
OTOH, maybe compatibility with patches out there using Cyclone
[pow~] should
This is a serious problem -- putting a backwards pow~ into Pd might
be worse than having none at all. But writing a book that uses pow
backwards would be even worse than having one in Pd!
Maybe the right thing would be to use another name such as power~.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:08PM
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:07 -0700
Miller Puckette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a serious problem -- putting a backwards pow~ into Pd might
be worse than having none at all. But writing a book that uses pow
backwards would be even worse than having one in Pd!
Agreed. This is a difficult
Andy Farnell wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:07 -0700
Miller Puckette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a serious problem -- putting a backwards pow~ into Pd might
be worse than having none at all. But writing a book that uses pow
backwards would be even worse than having one in Pd!
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:17:29 +0100
Claude Heiland-Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it would be in core how about ^ or **
^ is usually bitwise XOR (in C, and Pd's expr).
I think the presence in [expr~] is enough to exclude that option.
** is used for powers in a number of
Miller Puckette wrote:
This is a serious problem -- putting a backwards pow~ into Pd might
be worse than having none at all. But writing a book that uses pow
backwards would be even worse than having one in Pd!
Maybe the right thing would be to use another name such as power~.
then the max
Andy Farnell wrote:
x^y seems natural to put the exponent in the
second argument.
I would not go so far to call it natural, but maybe conventional.
marius.
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
Andy Farnell wrote:
This would mean breaking backwards with Cyclone.
well, we still could keep cyclone/pow~.
... pd still has the 0 in the version number.
break because patches would simply fail to compute correctly rather than
throwing any kind of detectable error.
they could throw a
On 24/04/2008, at 19.17, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
But, there is the potential confusion of [pow][pow~][**][**~], it
would
be nice if the signal version of maths behaved the same as the
non-signal maths with the same name (confusing if [pow] exists but the
signal equivalent is [**~]).
Yes, a backwards clash is horrible Marius, and I want to avoid that
too.
The question would be over a new name I guess.
There's plenty of room in the name space to avoid clashing if
we do reverse [pow~]
[pwr~] for eample (anyone building a pressurised water reactor?...)
It may seem weird to
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:30:44 +0200
Steffen Juul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And to be frank, does it really matter if it's one way or the other?
I think it does. No doubt there are exeptions that go against this, but
it seems well established that all Pd objects order arguments like
standard
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Yes, a backwards clash is horrible Marius, and I want to avoid that
too.
The question would be over a new name I guess.
What about the [list OP] approach for signal math, as I implemented with
my [math~ OP] abstraction? This would also
honestly, I think not many people used it...
I ran
grep -R pow~ *
in my pd-directories and found only two patches (of 1+) besides the
helppatch for pow~, that use it. nusmuk for distortion.pd, tb for
sigmoid_booster~.pd
I don't know other big collections like net-pd (I think I just checked
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:38:25AM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Note that I also think, the math objects (abs~, pow~ etc.) should be
part of Pd, and probably symbol2list.
I second this.
Miller, what do you think? You have mentioned importing Cyclone into Pd;
is it just a matter of yourself
Hallo,
Matt Barber hat gesagt: // Matt Barber wrote:
Actually, for those of us who insist on vanilla and do everything with
expr/expr~/fexpr~ or abstractions, is it possible to implement [z~] in
fexpr~ for a delay larger than its vector size? You could do it with
an abstraction using
Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PD] Cyclone in vanilla?
To: pd-list@iem.at
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hallo,
Matt Barber hat gesagt: // Matt Barber wrote:
Actually, for those of us who insist on vanilla and do everything
I believe z~ is just rzero~ 0.
cheers
Miller
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:24:34AM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Matt Barber hat gesagt: // Matt Barber wrote:
Actually, for those of us who insist on vanilla and do everything with
expr/expr~/fexpr~ or abstractions, is it possible to
Hi all,
I think I tried putting cyclone in Pd a couple of years ago and got
hung up over some problem or other. I'll look at it and see if I can
just do it...
cheers
M
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 02:26:42PM +0800, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:38:25AM +0200, Frank Barknecht
Miller Puckette wrote:
Hi all,
I think I tried putting cyclone in Pd a couple of years ago and got
hung up over some problem or other. I'll look at it and see if I can
just do it...
awesome!
here is a short list of nameclashing objects. (at least what I found in
pd-extended).
Append
It seems the cleanest solution would be to just include the objects
that Andy has pointed out. Otherwise, I think adding the whole of
cyclone will be opening up a big can of worms.
.hc
On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hi all,
I think I tried putting cyclone in Pd a
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:17:09 +0200
Derek Holzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no worries, just thinking practically rather than wishfully ;-)
:) always appreciate a practical attitude
Practically, it's looking more and more like I need
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
I therefore define missing as when the best answer on the table is
use [expr~] or use this equivalence made of more than 2 or 3
objects
What about vanilla-abstractions? Pd-vanilla currently only ships with
a handful of abstractions
On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:52 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
I therefore define missing as when the best answer on the table is
use [expr~] or use this equivalence made of more than 2 or 3
objects
What about vanilla-abstractions? Pd-vanilla
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:38:25 +0200
Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Practically, it's looking more and more like I need to drop
the wishful thinking that I can write a useful and easy to understand
textbook based around vanilla Pd.
And instead write an easy-to-understand
Andy Farnell wrote:
Right now my 'missing' list includes [z~], [abs~], [ln~], [log~],
[pow~], [tanh~], [cosh~]
aren't you also referring to moog~ sometimes?
marius.
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
Am 22.04.2008 um 17:02 schrieb Andy Farnell:
Note that I also think, the math objects (abs~, pow~ etc.) should be
part of Pd, and probably symbol2list.
Two of us doesn't make a concensus, but I've got the feeling most
would
agree.
Me for one, i have really missed pow~ or abs~ but i
Then we should also add streaming... wait this is starting to sound a
bit like Pd-extended ;)
Is this the pattern that this debate always follows when someose suggests
adding essential and sensible changes to Pd vanilla?
Are we unable to distinguish between gaps in the axiomatic object
set
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:52:17 +0200
Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reluctant to mention [counter] here, which also was coded many
times, unfortunatly in incompatible ways. I'm reluctant, because
[counter] is too basic to be included.
I heartily agree. In fact I don't suggest
Andy Farnell wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:52:17 +0200
Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reluctant to mention [counter] here, which also was coded many
times, unfortunatly in incompatible ways. I'm reluctant, because
[counter] is too basic to be included.
I heartily agree.
Hallo,
Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
Unfortunately I've used [pow~] in dozens of other patches and it's
quite unfeasible to go back and rewrite all of them and the accompanying
text. It would take me weeks, and so I feel (on an emotional level)
quite pissed off because
Hallo,
Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
If you want to avoid too much search-and-replace editing, maybe you
could introduce your own wrapper abstraction version of [pow~] with
[expr~ pow($v2, $v1)] inside? Call it [andypowell~] and do a
search/replace session. Or call it
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:02:37 +0100
From: Andy Farnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PD] Cyclone in vanilla?
To: pd-list@iem.at
=
Right now my 'missing' list includes [z~], [abs~], [ln~], [log~],
[pow~], [tanh~], [cosh~]
One might put [atan~] and [atan2~] on this list
Did I read that Cyclone is to be incorporated into vanilla Pd?
Having discovered too late that [pow~] is not part of vanilla
I am about to remove the constraint of using vanilla Pd for
the synthetic sound design book since it is incomplete without
basic mathematical operators.
andy
--
Use
Can the job be done with [expr~]?
d.
Andy Farnell wrote:
Did I read that Cyclone is to be incorporated into vanilla Pd?
Having discovered too late that [pow~] is not part of vanilla
I am about to remove the constraint of using vanilla Pd for
the synthetic sound design book since it is
Yes. Please don't take this the wrong way Derek, I sincerely appreciate
the suggestion.
Everything can be done with [expr~], so why don't we just rename Pd
to [expr~]? :)
Seriously, raising one number to a power is an essential, fundamental operation
Is there any plausible excuse for its
Hi Andy,
no worries, just thinking practically rather than wishfully ;-)
Maybe some of the math-heads here can make a contest to see how much of
a PD patch/instrument they could make using ONLY [expr] and [expr~]...
the winner gets a Heineken and a bar of Dial soap, or something .
I only
[expr pow($f1,$f2)]
or
[expr~ pow($v1,$f2)]
or
[expr~ pow($v1,$v2)]
etc.
I don't know why you consider this an omission?
JP
Andy Farnell wrote:
Yes. Please don't take this the wrong way Derek, I sincerely appreciate
the suggestion.
Everything can be done with [expr~], so why don't we just
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:27:17 -0400
Julian Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[expr pow($f1,$f2)]
or
[expr~ pow($v1,$f2)]
or
[expr~ pow($v1,$v2)]
etc.
I don't know why you consider this an omission?
JP
Hi Julian,
Thanks for the suggestion
I consider it an omission because [pow~] is a
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:17:09 +0200
Derek Holzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no worries, just thinking practically rather than wishfully ;-)
:) always appreciate a practical attitude
Practically, it's looking more and more like I need to drop
the wishful thinking that I can write a useful and easy
Fair point Hans. My main consideration though is ease of understanding.
What this looks like to students when you have to explain there isn't
an object to raise to a power in Pd, but there is a button dedicated
to it on every desktop calculator.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:59:46 -0400
Hans-Christoph
I think this is definitely a good thing in terms of accessability.
If someone codes these missing 10 and submitted them to the patch
tracker, I'll bet there is a good chance that they would be accepted.
.hc
On Apr 21, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:17:09
the question is a very blasphemic one, and I am not sure, if I should
bring this into discussion at all...
but how long is miller going to develop pd, and when should vanilla
become a group effort rather than a one man show? and who is ever
willing to take responsibility for the future
the question is a very blasphemic one, and I am not sure, if I should
bring this into discussion at all...
It's vital we discuss this.
It took a while for me to appreciate what I believe to be Millers
philosophy, and in principle I agree with and respect it. To keep
the core of Pd as small
75 matches
Mail list logo
