Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: Obviously usefulness is essential. Not even: the 6809 CPU has those two curious opcodes in it. BRA, or branch always, means if(1) goto ...; BRN, or branch never, means if(0) goto ...; this is among 14 other types of branches like branch if last result overflowed and branch if last result was negative and other serious stuff. Note that 6809 already has another goto statement, called JMP. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
On Sep 16, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: Arg... another example of the limitations of email, its so hard to communicate anything where nuance is essential. This discussion would take 10 minutes in person and no one would be annoyed. Ah, yes, that's so very true... ;) - I do not care about strict adherence to backwards compatibility - I do care about finding broad standards that make sense in the overall - I did not know that [once] already exists elsewhere outside of purepd A name - of an object or a funicton - always carries some meaning of its own, which should be related to its behaviour. That is my main point against having [once] closed as default: A closed [once] to me more seems like a [never]. Viewing it from this point was what made me come up with [countdown]. Maybe [countdown] isn't the best name, either. Alternatives could be [manyshot], [someshot], [passmany], [passcount] etc. What do you think? I can say a [never] object makes no sense, while a [once] object that is default closed would be like When I tell you to, then let something past just once. In Pd: | [bang( | | [once 0] | The question of consistency is a tough one here. Linguistic consistency is what you are outlining. From what I know most programming languages are more likely to adhere consistency of function arguments. But its tough to say what would work better in Pd. Words can be very vague, especially when you consider that many programmers will be programming in a language that is not their native tongue. So it seems quite difficult to be strictly adherent to the words. Of course, it should be close as possible. But words are how humans communicate with each other, so the meaning of the language should be given attention. So the other kind of consistency in question here is consistency of usage. All similar functions should have the same arguments, for example. Which type of consistency trumps the other? That's the question at hand. I personally feel that its not more linguistically consistent to have [once] default open when it has no argument. But this is inconsistent in usage with similar objects ([spigot]...). .hc ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: IOhannes stuck [once] into the purepd library. I started that library as a DEVELOPMENT library to explore ideas of how to implement things in Pd. IOhannes replaced my code with [once] without asking me. That's bad CVS etiquette. But [once] was an improvement on what was there. I want to improve it further but you guys are blocking me. So here's what I say: We're not blocking anything: It was you who asked for opinions on a certain change to [once] and I said my opionion, so did IOhannes. I don't see how that is blocking anything. Additionally I also sat down for 20 minutes and implemented your proposed change, I even extended its features in a way that seemed natural to me. I also don't see how this is blocking development, instead I think, this *is* development. Third: I thought purepd is meant to replace standard externals, as stated in the README. Now your proposed change to [once] would actually make [purepd/once] incompatible with the standard external [once] in IEM (which actually isn't an external anyways). Finally: I think I've said all I wanted to say regarding purepd/once. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__ ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
hi. Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: IOhannes stuck [once] into the purepd library. I started that library true as a DEVELOPMENT library to explore ideas of how to implement things in sorry, i had no idea you intended it like that. i always thought that purepd would be a replacement for often-used externals in plain pd, and that it was meant to be a community effort. i was mistaken here. Pd. IOhannes replaced my code with [once] without asking me. That's hmm, which code are you talking about? did i _replace_ your code of [once] with (my) [once]? i don't think so. did i replace your code of [oneshot] with one using (my implementation of) [once]? this is true (but the logfiles of [oneshot] state, that it is meant as a pd-ified version[s] of existing object[s]; the only known [oneshot] object (at that time) is in MarkEx/Gem, and the original pd-ified object did not properly implement that's behaviour. i thought i was fixing a bug...) bad CVS etiquette. But [once] was an improvement on what was there. I thanks for the roses. want to improve it further but you guys are blocking me. So here's what I say: purepd will remain a DEVELOPMENT library. If you want a static, unchanging [once], please include it elsewhere, like zexy. If you want a place to freely explore implementing things in Pd, please include it in the purepd library. Then as interfaces and ideas get solidified, they can be moved elsewhere. an this from someone who is known for advocating standard behaviour of objects. purepd is a very catchy name for a mere sandbox. mfg.adr. IOhannes ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
On Sep 11, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: I was thinking that it would be nice to have [once] accept a single argument which would set the initial state of the object, just like [spigot]. But this means that it would have to be default closed like spigot, breaking backwards compatibility. Do you mind if I make this change in abstractions/purepd/once.pd and add a warning message on load? I've never used [once] but to me it seems that breaking compatibility just for something that would be nice may do more harm than good to people who have actually used [once] and who now would need to find and change the patches where they did. Additionally I would find it confusing to have a [once] which would actually be more like a [nonce] unless called with an argument. I actually think that default closed would be more consistent behavior, especially if [once] uses an argument. Changing [once] to default-closed would make it exactly like [spigot], except with the added feature of closing itself after receiving one piece of data. The more objects behave consistently with each other, the better Pd will be. .hc As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. - Benjamin Franklin ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
There are many objects that control flow. [spigot], [gate], etc. They take float arguments. Float arguments are initialized to 0. 0 means closed in Pd. [once] controls flow. It should take a float argument like [spigot] and [gate] so you can choose the default state. No argument implies an argument of 0. Therefore it makes sense that [once] would be default closed. If you want it to be default open, you can easily do [once 1]. This has worked well for [spigot], I think this will work well for [once]. If you doubt that [once] and [spigot] are related, then open up the once.pd and check what is controlling the flow of data. Low and behold, its [spigot]. .hc On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:31 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: I actually think that default closed would be more consistent behavior, especially if [once] uses an argument. Changing [once] to i cannot follow you here: what makes [once] consistent if it was closed by default? while the object should be consistent to other objects (and i don't think it is inconsistent), it should be consistent to itself in the first place. (e.g.: making an empty object [Symbol] output 0 if you bang it (after instantiation without arguments), might be consistent to [f] and [t f], but somehow i have the feeling it should do symbols...;-)) default-closed would make it exactly like [spigot], except with the added feature of closing itself after receiving one piece of data. i follow frank here: if this object was exactly like [spigot] then you should use [spigot]. if there is a need for your suggested hybrid between [spigot] and [once], then this object should be, but with a different name. The more objects behave consistently with each other, the better Pd will be. but the more objects will behave as expected, the even better Pd will be. consistency is really a lot about how do i expect an object to behave imho, the biggest inconsistency for [once] is, that you can reset it at all. mfg.asdr IOhannes ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a more direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in practice, it can change entire economies. - Amy Smith ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: I was thinking that it would be nice to have [once] accept a single argument which would set the initial state of the object, just like [spigot]. But this means that it would have to be default closed like spigot, breaking backwards compatibility. No, it doesn't mean that. You need to make the creator accept A_GIMME instead of A_DEFFLOAT. Then when you get argc,argv, check whether argc==0. Do you mind if I make this change in abstractions/purepd/once.pd and add a warning message on load? Don't accept Pd's limitations, push for $@ and/or $# today! _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] [once] default closed...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: Ok, so you want to extend the tentacles of Pd's caste system further? Abstractions for the plebe, externals for gentlemen. It looks like you didn't read that line of mine below? Don't accept Pd's limitations, push for $@ and/or $# today! I mean, shouldn't abstractions have access to the same features as externals do? Why would a limitation in the way abstractions currently can accept arguments, define how [once] behaves, forever? If you can't use $@ and $# because they're not Miller-approved, then what's the problem with using an external that will provide you the kind of argument-fetching that you need, for making the object behave like people would expect? I mean something like MAX's [patcherargs] instead of trying to fit with the dumb ways of $1 and construe it as a feature or as a principle to extend over all the behaviour of Pd. _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
