I'm not really against "-args", though, I'm just trying to look for
something less ugly. It definitely is the most foolproof solution so far.
Anway, I think it should only apply to a *single* patch. This raises the
question how to deal with patches passed as "regular" arguments...
You say we
yes, sure.
Your last e-mail indicated otherwise. You showed how you can't open
"mypatch.pd" as "mypatch", but this was not what Mario was asking.
but what's the point of this discussion?
I just answered a question and you said my answer was wrong.
how is being able to open a file with an
On 2020-06-09 17:34, Christof Ressi wrote:
> Just to be clear: we're talking about opening a patch file that does not
> have the .pd extension, e.g. "mypatch.txt" or simply "mypatch". This
> certainly works (at least here on Windows.)
yes, sure. that's what i wrote in my other mail.
but what's
Just to be clear: we're talking about opening a patch file that does not
have the .pd extension, e.g. "mypatch.txt" or simply "mypatch". This
certainly works (at least here on Windows.)
On 09.06.2020 17:27, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 2020-06-09 15:55, Christof Ressi wrote:
Does Pd open a
On 2020-06-09 15:55, Christof Ressi wrote:
>> Does Pd open a patch that doesn't have the .pd extension?
> Yes.
not here.
```
$ ls -l
mypatch.pd
$ pd -stderr -verbose mypatch.pd
[...]
tried .../mypatch.pd and succeeded
^C
Pd: signal 2
$ pd -stderr -verbose mypatch
[...]
tried .../mypatch and
Does Pd open a patch that doesn't have the .pd extension?
Yes.
On 09.06.2020 15:49, Mario Buoninfante wrote:
Yap, absolutely it does make sense, and I wouldn't skip the extension
unless it was clear that was an accepted behavior.
I guess with mandatory what I mean is:
Does Pd open a patch
Yap, absolutely it does make sense, and I wouldn't skip the extension
unless it was clear that was an accepted behavior.
I guess with mandatory what I mean is:
Does Pd open a patch that doesn't have the .pd extension?
Then whether or not this is good practice it's a different story.
But yes, I do
On 09.06.20 14:02, Christof Ressi wrote:
> Yes, the .pd extension is not mandatory!
depends on what you mean with "mandatory".
what is mandatory is that the you specify a full filename (not
necessarily the "full path").
if the filename ends with ".pd", you *must* also add the suffix when
calling
Yes, the .pd extension is not mandatory! In fact, it doesn't even have
to be a "real" Pd patch. You can also open a .txt file containing a list
of arbitrary Pd messages.
On 09.06.2020 12:55, Mario Buoninfante wrote:
actually it seems .pd is not mandatory, right?
Anyway I like this :)
pd
actually it seems .pd is not mandatory, right?
Anyway I like this :)
pd -open "mypatch1.pd: 1 2 3" -open "mypatch2: foo bar"
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Good point about colons and semicolons not being 100% safe.
Only thing I would say is that they will only be there after ".pd" and this
should make it safer (easier to parse!?!?!).
+1 for
pd -open "mypatch1.pd: 1 2 3" -open "mypatch2: foo bar"
___
Actually, I've thought if we could use a semicolon to seperate patch
from arguments:
pd -open "mypatch1.pd; 1 2 3" -open "mypatch2; foo bar"
Unfortunately, semicolons are not really reserved characters for
filenames, neither on Windows, nor on Linux/macOS, but their use is
certainly
ChucK uses an interesting syntax to pass arguments to programs that we
could consider borrowing:
> chuck myprog.ck:23:anotherArg myprog2.ck:42
that in our case would be:
> pd mypatch.pd:23:anotherArg mypatch2.pd:42
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
this breaks th eexpectations of cmdline processing (a separation between
options with arguments (e.g. '-a "1 2 3"') and 'just arguments"
("patch1.pd patch2.pd").
Agreed.
or should it be the other way round?
pd -args 'foo bar' -open "patch1.pd" -open "patch2.pd"
I tend to agree. It's also
On 6/8/20 5:49 PM, Christof Ressi wrote:
> The thing is that we can load more than one patch. I think something
> like this could work:
>
> pd patch1.pd -a "1 2 3" patch2.pd -a "foo bar"
>
> But we could move the bikeshedding to GitHub ;-)
> https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/1058
>
However, cool to have tests in Pd ;)
For the name : Pure DAT (Pure Data Auto Tests).
Too close to Pure Data ? Sure !
++
Jacj
Le 08/06/2020 à 17:55, Jack a écrit :
> For french people, after "pd", we have "pedant" :D
> I love !
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/p%C3%A9dant
> ++
>
> Jack
>
>
>
For french people, after "pd", we have "pedant" :D
I love !
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/p%C3%A9dant
++
Jack
Le 08/06/2020 à 17:40, Christof Ressi a écrit :
> Big thumps up for test suits! BTW, IOhannes has already been working on
> a testing framework for Pd: https://git.iem.at/pd/pedant
>
, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at
<mailto:pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at> wrote:
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:12:34 +0100
From: Sebastian Lexer <mailto:s.le...@incalcando.com>>
To: Pd-List mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>>,
Christof Ressi
mailto:i...@christofressi.com>>
Subject: Re: [P
Big thumps up for test suits! BTW, IOhannes has already been working on
a testing framework for Pd: https://git.iem.at/pd/pedant
Christof
On 08.06.2020 17:34, Mario Buoninfante wrote:
Yap, in the end I put a [receive] in the patch as a workaround.
I'll open a ticket on github then, I suppose
Yap, in the end I put a [receive] in the patch as a workaround.
I'll open a ticket on github then, I suppose this could be useful.
Just to give you a bit more context here, the reason why I'm asking for
this is because I'm prototyping a test suite for Pd - ie for "continuous
integration' or
@lists.iem.at wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:12:34 +0100
> From: Sebastian Lexer mailto:s.le...@incalcando.com>>
> To: Pd-List mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at>>, Christof
> Ressi
> mailto:i...@christofressi.com>>
> Subject: Re: [PD] Pass arg to Pd
I like this idea very much! Could there be an argument flag? e.g.
$ pd mypatch.pd -a 23
Basically like terminal commands in sox, where the flags apply to import and
output files dependent on the placement, in PD it could work as flags for PD
before and in between the filename(s) to be opened.
Ah, that's an interesting idea. Unfortunately, your proposed syntax
wouldn't work because any arguments after the flags are treated as patch
files, so in your case Pd would try to open "mypatch.pd" and "23".
Top level patches usually don't use creation arguments because it is not
really
Hi Christof,
Just read your email, thanks guys for your help!
Cheers,
Mario
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your help. That's great but is not exactly what I'm looking for.
In my previous email I missed an important bit, what I'd like to do is pass
an arg to a specific patch.
Something like
> pd mypatch.pd 23
and then in "mypatch" I have [$1] that is now 23.
Cheers,
Mario
To expand on Jack's answer:
pd -send "foo baz; bar 1 2 3;"
This will send 'baz' to the receiver 'foo' and '1 2 3' to the receiver
'bar'.
---
Here's a caveat for all Msys2 users on Windows: by default the Msys2
terminal interprets messages starting with a forward slash as absolute
file
Hello Mario,
If you do :
$ pd --help
you should get a line with :
-send "msg..." -- send a message at startup, after patches are loaded
++
Jack
Le 08/06/2020 à 14:32, Mario Buoninfante a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to pass arguments to Pd via terminal?
> I know we don't have
Hi,
Is it possible to pass arguments to Pd via terminal?
I know we don't have [stdin], but I was wondering if there is any other way.
Cheers,
Mario
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
28 matches
Mail list logo
