On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Peter Brinkmann wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Rich E <[email protected]> wrote: > I do think it is important to separate these things into bite size chunks (I > think IOhannes mentioned this as well during his LAC talk). Peter, your blog > post talks of creating an API for editing patches (here), and while I look > forward to these capabilities, I think this is also a separate job as to the > one Miller proposed on this thread, which I see as taking care of the static > state in pd. I don't think I could prioritize these two different jobs, but > I'd say multiple instances allows us to definitively crush max, as we'll have > a pd vst. :) > > I harbor no hostility to Max, but I agree that getting rid of global state > and allowing multiple instances should be the first order of business. Any > ideas?
The way I see the "editing API" is the converse of the pd-gui --> pd communications: pd messages. My approach is to do it bit by bit. Take a chunk of the current pd-gui --> pd communications and refactor into something that looks like a pd message (Tcl proc calls can look the small, luckily, the syntax is similar in some basic ways). Ico has recently refactored array moving into a single 'move' command, that's in pd-l2ork. I haven't looked at that yet. But that's the same idea. .hc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated wherever you are." - Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
