[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Jamie Bullock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 09:54 -0400, Enrique Erne wrote: >>> Hi Jamie >>> >>> It's not much but might be helpful to port other stuff to purepd. >>> >>> you'll find >>> gt~.pd (>~) >>> lt~.pd (<~) >>> sgn~.pd >>> >>> http://www.netpd.org/eni/purepd/ >> That's great actually, and I'd love to contribute back into this. >> However, if I'm not mistaked aren't there two purepd projects >> netpd/purepd and Hans's purepd in pd svn? Would it be worth feeding your >> patches into Hans's, and then any other abstractions I make/find I can >> also feed into svn? > > just out of curiosity: >~.pd, <~.pd, sgn~ and what else in zexy are > already pd-vanilla abstractions (some of them are both abstractions > and externals for performance reasons); is there an advantage in > collecting these things in yet another arbitrary (as opposed to > grouped by functionality) library?
where are any abstractions/externals "grouped by functionality"? do you mean pdmtl? just to be clear: the files netpd.org/eni/purepd/ are not collected as library, they are just there since i have no other place to put them and it could be useful for purepd reasons. the svn purepd patches contain some abstractions that confuse me a bit. actually i would like to contribute to purepd. (i.e. why is there moses and clip?) maybe we should define a purepd styleguide too. the any_argument abstraction bothers me. i belive the patches could work without them and i would prefer to keep it super simple. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
