i agree - kinda antithetical to the ethos of Pure Data, really. i think you could use Heavy to turn a patch into rather voluminous C++ code. i remember from the devs that they said the code output wasn't supposed to be edited or analyzed by humans, but rather existed to be wrapped to work in a number of environments as sort of a black box or code blob. but obfuscating a PD patch itself seems stupid. i'm sure you could name subpatches and abstractions randomly and maybe even rearrange the physical placement using the method Jonathan refers to, though i believe that could affect signal flow and execution order, wouldn't it?
best, scott On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres <[email protected]> wrote: > but why? > > 2016-05-12 3:03 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list < > [email protected]>: > >> What about simply changing all object coords other than inlet/outlet to >> (0, 0)? >> >> -Jonathan >> >> >> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:00 AM, Mario Mey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a >> Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names >> of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects >> to make very hard to understand, etc...? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
