I very much agree with your points.
If we lump "user space" and "internal" messaging together in an open
manual, then they should be clearly delineated with special placed on
emphasizing what things are more or less stable and what things are
not. Then the user can decide how they want to proceed.
As you say, it's better to document all of it and at the same time make
it clear what is public and what is private. And figure out how to deal
with the large gray area in between :-)
Christof
On 28.11.2021 00:37, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Howdy all,
My feeling on this is:
1. Recognize that, despite using "private" or "unstable" internal
APIs, people have been using/abusing them for years. (So far, I feel
we have been recognizing this by being careful not to break things,
more or less.)
2. We should document all internal messaging, at least for the sake of
developer documentation. If we lump "user space" and "internal"
messaging together in an open manual, then they should be clearly
delineated with special placed on emphasizing what things are more or
less stable and what things are not. Then the user can decide how they
want to proceed. I don't see a problem if people want to play with the
internals on their own machine and crash Pd... that's half the fun for
such activities anyway (learning).
3. We should get a poll of which internal messages are currently in
use and consider which of these could be moved into "user space"
and/or replaced by a better API. I believe this thread is already
providing a good list...
4. Open a technical discussion on supporting "dynamic patching"
officially. It's clearly very useful even if clunky through the
current workarounds. Even with [clone] there are still many use cases...
On Nov 28, 2021, at 12:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:20:49 +0100
From: Jean-Yves Gratius <[email protected]>
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PD] documenting messages to/from Pd and dynamic patching
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
On 27/11/2021 17:19,[email protected]:
ForwardedMessage.eml
Subject:
Re: [PD] documenting messages to/from Pd and dynamic patching
From:
Christof Ressi <[email protected]>
Date:
27/11/2021 ? 17:01
To:
Pd-List <[email protected]>
Two examples that come to my mind:
1) [iemguts/canvasselect] allows to (de)select objects simply by
index. No need to emulate mouse selection with "mouse" and "mouseup".
2) canvases/objects can be moved around with [iemguts/canvasposition]
resp. [iemguts/canvasobjectposition]
Are there any other use cases for "mouse" and "mouseup"?
Hi. My 2 cents
Personally, I use mouse and mouseup messages to forward multitouch
events into the patch, received? from my multitouch linux laptop.
If those messages were blocked, all my multitouch ecosystem would be out
of order :-) .
--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com>
_______________________________________________
[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
