Is there actual Pd code for Max 6+ classes somewhere behind this 40+ message
thread?
-Jonathan
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:57 PM, Matt Barber <[email protected]>
wrote:
+1 To Ivica's proposal and rationale. There are plenty of people willing to
help with development and maintenance. If a Max 4.6 compatibility library is
really necessary, perhaps that could be the fork with the new name.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Ivica Ico Bukvic <[email protected]> wrote:
FWIW, Fred, if there is a way to convince you to allow for adding new objects,
I would certainly like to second that. In the eyes of new pd users who are
familiar with Max, Cyclone is not only a Max 4.6 compatibility library, it is
first and foremost Max compatibility library and that would suggest newer
objects should be in there. I imagine the only reason they simply weren't
already added is likely due to lack of a developer and maintainer. The last
thing pd community needs is yet another library that may end-up without a
maintainer. The confusion one will have to deal with by creating
cyclone/prepend vs. <some-other-lib>/pong is pointless at best. If maintaining
library overhead is a concern, please note we've already done a fair amount of
creating updated help files for the entire cyclone library in pd-l2ork, as well
as fixing and upgrading a number of objects, all of which I've gladly shared
with you and continue to contribute as much as you allow and my time permits.
But please, let's not start yet another library. If anything, we should look
into consolidating. Pd-L2Ork has already started doing this. e.g. one of the
examples brought up regarding Eric Lyon's potpourri and cyclone's cartopol~ and
poltocar~, in pd-l2ork, potpourri objects are not being built because they are
not necessary. All this with the goal of eventually doing away with
subfolders/declares/imports and other middleware and simply having all the best
externals in one folder and getting rid of the rest (or perhaps adding them in
the unsupported/legacy subfolder). In such an ecosystem PD META will take care
of the attribution and bug reporting and we'll be all better for it,
particularly in terms of encouraging new users to join the pd community.
On 2/17/2016 1:33 PM, Fred Jan Kraan wrote:
Hi Alexandre,
Howdy, if you understand only a part of it, I know that I know about
nothing.
But hey, as I understand it, there's quite some work to make it (loading
the weird name objects without [declare]) happen and you'd rather focus
on other fixes, cool.
Well, I'm just starting using github
https://github.com/porres/pd-cyclone
<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fporres%2Fpd-cyclone&h=FAQF6upTy>
and
have mobilized others to collaborate with new objects for cyclone,
according to that list I shared these days.
You may have noticed a pull request already for [pong]. I'm working with
someone else and we should be having scale / scale~ / atodb / dbtoa /
atodb~ / dbtoa~ / trunc~ ready quite soon!
Yes, I noticed. I appreciate all you do for pd and cyclone in particular, but I
cannot accept the request. Cyclone is one of the few libraries with a closed
set of objects; only those part of Max/MSP, arbitrary set around version 4.6 or
5.
Cyclone is already quite big, with 150+ objects. This seems a good reason to be
selective in which objects should be added. Just because objects are or should
be in Max/MSP is not reason enough. If it exists in another library, it is
unneeded IMHO.
I can bother myself to try and deal with the issues regarding these
objects, but I think a start could be to create new objects with the
unweird names, this is not in conflict with Max compatibility, as it
also loads these objects via the same way (again, they'd be:
/greaterthan~ / greaterthaneq~ / lessthan~ / lessthaneq~ / equals~ /
notequals~ / plusequals~ / rminus~ / rminus / rdiv~ / rdiv / modulo~/).
It wouldn't get in conflict with current state of cyclone either and the
help files of these objects could refer to nettles and all. Cool? Later
on in the game I can try and figure out how to load them without declare.
Personally I have no issue with [declare] as it is vanilla. Or with the weird
names; if you want un-weird names, abstractions (containing [declare] should
work too?
cheers
cheers
Greetings,
Fred Jan
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
