Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
...

If there is good code out there, I want to use it, not reinvent it.
having a complex abstraction to replace this :
loadbang
$1
moses 0

is overkill. it add complexity to a simple patch.

If you use mapping in Pd-extended, you never need to know anything about what's happening inside, it just works.
if you don't use pd extended, it just don't work.
i already explain why i don't use pd-extended, and will not change my mind soon.


With a little bit of effort, Pd-vanilla users can also acheive this. That's why I am fixing up libdir.c and these libraries in SVN.

i just don't want to add complexity to a simple thing, just because you think 
it's better.



These libraries were a place for me to experiment with ways of handling libraries in Pd easier.
for me it was something for everyday use!
and i basically can't use it the way i want, and the way i made it.

Some of the experiments failed, but I think right now its in a pretty good place. So try it out the way it is now and tell me what doesn't work.


to have mapping/reverse in the object break the way i work with pd for the last 
8 years.

to use [float_argument] that is outside the mapping folder cause problem to. 
(remember the pm mapping presentation @ hangar?)
at least, it could be copy / linked on the mapping directory. the best would be 
of course to replace it with a more simpler code based on 3 simple object. 
(well, to revert the change you made to my objects)

this are the biggest problem i've got.


cyrille



_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Reply via email to