Works for me. The pd~ stuff looks big enough for a new release. .hc
On Dec 10, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: > Maybe I should just freeze 0.42 on the sooner-than-leter side so we > can take our time on u_main questions. Most of the stuff I'm working > on is proceeding in fits and starts anyway. > > cheers > Miller > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 05:49:14PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Miller Puckette wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've spent some time thinking about this. I had only limited >>> success pulling >>> code from the 0.39 "devel" because there were so many changes, >>> often with >>> rationales I didn't fully understand, that I wasn't confident >>> about my >>> ability to maintain whatever I ended up with. However, I did >>> manage to >>> fold some of it back into 'vanilla'. >> >> Yeah, I hope we learned from that experience, it ended up being a >> fast-changing fork, as far as I could tell. I think it is important >> to keep things slow so that everyone involved can know what's >> going on. >> >>> On the other hand, u_main.tk is such a mess that I don't think of >>> it in >>> the same way as the rest of the Pd code at all - I'm much more >>> willing to >>> take "patches" on it even if I don't understand them :) >>> >>> A couple of details. First, I'm at work myself making a desire- >>> data-inspired >>> rewrite of all the dialog windows... maybe you shouldn't lose time >>> on that >>> till I have a chance to hack at it. I'm also planning rather soon >>> to add >>> a new text-editor-window feature. >> >> Do you have a target date for this release? I plan on working >> starting now and thru January on this. >> >> A key reason for me wanting to do this is to clean up and structure >> u_main.tk in a rational way. It's a mess with different people's >> coding styles, strange order, no "main()" equivalent, etc. Plus a >> lot of the code really avoids using Tcl the way it should be used, >> and dates to Tcl 8.3. This is be an opportunity to make clean Tcl >> code, switch to Tcl 8.5 (which has big improvements on all >> platforms), and make for an more easily extendable GUI. >> >> So honestly, I think it makes sense to first lay down this groundwork >> before changing elements like the properties panels. In the end, I >> think that these two parts could be developed in parallel though. >> >> I plan on focusing on the core structure of u_main.tk then working on >> the menus, key commands, window dressing and localization support. >> Then when there is a nice structure to build upon, I really want to >> focus on making the workflow as smooth as possible, like structuring >> a lot of the ideas from DesireData. >> >> Another thing I think is really worth exploring is replacing tkcmd.c >> with pure Tcl code. Then the GUI would be pure Tcl and easier to >> build and manage. Plus this should make handling charsets much >> smoother AFAIK for supporting non-ASCII chars. >> >>> Second, and this just occurred to me, I think it would be smart to >>> separate >>> the u_main.tk cide into several smaller files. They could simply be >>> concatenated by the makefile. This way people could work on >>> different >>> parts of it with much less chance of their work colliding. I >>> should have >>> thought of this simple strategy years ago, hmm. >> >> I am not sure that this would have a big impact, but I wouldn't >> oppose it. Personally, I think the file should either be called >> 'pd.tk' or should be broken up into Tcl 'packages' organized around >> functionality. PortAuthority is a Tcl app that is structured like >> this (perhaps too much so, though). >> >> .hc >> >> >> >> >>> >>> cheers >>> Miller >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 05:32:59PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> Hope you are all well:) >>>> >>>> Some of us have been toying with the idea of working on the gui >>>> code >>>> (u_main.tk/pd.tk only, leaving the C code untouched) of Pd for a >>>> little >>>> while now. Starting with refactoring it and gradually adds new >>>> stuff in, >>>> and hopefully the changes will work its way to pd-vanilla. >>>> >>>> For this reason, we would like to revive the good old pd-devel >>>> as the >>>> working branch. as it would seem fitting to do so instead of >>>> making a new >>>> branch with a new name. >>>> >>>> So i guess this mail will act as the announcement for this new >>>> effort, as >>>> well as a discussion starter for many of us who would like to talk >>>> about >>>> the surrounding issues. and perhaps we could also revive the semi >>>> regular >>>> dev meetings we had on #dataflow too;) >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> chun >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pd-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pd-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> ---- >> >> If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pd-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General Smedley Butler _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
