No, I probably can't make a better patch.
Also, before my last email might be read the wrong way, what I essentially
meant was:
Oh, you have code already working? Maybe I can look into porting it over into
a patch.
what I did *not* mean was:
Hey, why didn't you spend your free time doing it
On 02/10/14 09:24, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
If that's all [list foreach] is supposed to do I'll go ahead and
implement this in Pd-l2ork when I get a spare 10 mins.
The actual code took me about half an hour to adapt from other list
objects. I realise that is slow. What took a bit
Hi Chris,
I've used the same development process for Pd-extended and Vanilla as I
have with Pd-l2ork. It is pretty close to the general outline you gave in this
thread. There is no difference in working relationship-- I send patches, write
emails, test changes, say snarky things, etc.
Hi Ico,
Most important thing first: I do not think you are a dick, or that you
are being a dick, and I was not calling you a dick. I am tremendously
sorry that my email came across that way.
I re-edited that email several times to try to make sure that nothing I
was saying was inflammatory or
Ico does happen to have a [list cat] in Pd-l2ork. I'm not crazy about the
interface, but I haven't thought of a better one yet.
-Jonathan
On Friday, October 10, 2014 1:59 AM, Dan Wilcox danomat...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I probably can't make a better patch.
Also, before my last email
Here is one:
1) Don't check the type of the atoms. Just output inside the loop using
outlet_list That way you don't have to care if there happen to be other types
of atoms (like gpointers, blobs, etc.)
To complete it in 10 mins:
1) git diff filename.pd whatever.patch
2) submitting patch to
The main reason Pd-l2ork is not benefiting more users is because there aren't
binaries/bundles for OSX and Windows. There's a Pd-l2ork app I made for OSX
some time back that has a small selection of libs I compiled with it, but I
don't think there will be any more work on more platforms until
The only case to be made is for development, with the imperative, develop.
It's quite trivial to post a message to the console for a new class that says
version 0.1 and/or not stable yet and/or send feedback to foo@bar. It's
even possible to do that for methods of a class, which is what I've
Ugh.
Dear list members,
Do you see a problem with the development process that is implied in this
thread? If so, PM me and describe (but please do not rationalize) what you
think the problem is.
I can't say it will help improve anything about this (non-)development process,
but it will
On 10/9/2014 3:06 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hi,
indeed: the code in question has been implemented several times in various
external libraries, so adding it to the main binary of a pd-fork would just
create
an unnecessary incompatibility to vanilla core objects, but not gain anything
at all.
Oh, I almost forgot-- when I suggested I'd try dev'ing it in Pd-l2ork, I was
actually _dissuaded_ from doing development, for fear of creating an
incompatibility.
Can you explain how to turn this community ethos into the one you imagine in
your general outline-- one where we can quickly and
Also, where is a list foreach in the L2ork sources? I checked x_list.c, but it
only has a note saying foreach is among the things to Need to think more
about: https://github.com/pd-l2ork/pd/blob/master/pd/src/x_list.c#L32
If it's there, I can try making a patch but I don't know where to look
On 10/10/14 12:26, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
That's all great advice in general. But then there's this thread
in particular, where at least two perfectly capable developers chose to
advocate for a trivial feature to be added to Pd rather than taking 10
minutes to implement it and make a
On 10/10/14 13:31, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Also, where is a list foreach in the L2ork sources? I checked x_list.c,
but it only has a note saying foreach is among the things to Need to
think more
about: https://github.com/pd-l2ork/pd/blob/master/pd/src/x_list.c#L32
If it's there, I can try making
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 ;)
++
Jack
Le 01/10/2014 21:43, Joe White a écrit :
+1
On 1 October 2014 14:20, Dan Wilcox danomat...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:39 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at
wrote:
The addition of the symbol/list methods made
Sure, but we're referring to pd-vanilla.
On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:00 AM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
If that's all [list foreach] is supposed to do I'll go ahead and implement
this in Pd-l2ork when I get a spare 10 mins.
-Jonathan
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 3:43 PM, Joe White
+1
On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:39 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
The addition of the symbol/list methods made me think, that maybe now could
be a time to add these as well, or at least the important foreach.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _
Aren't we talking about a trivial few lines of code here:* new list family
class boilerplate
* loop through the input atom vector and output each of its atoms in sequence
(prefixed by the list selector, of course)* output a bang to a second outlet
when finished* consider whether it should be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2014-09-30 12:20, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hi,
I see that there now are the rather peculiar list fromsymbol and
list tosymbol methods in [list], but the much needed list
foreach still is missing. Why?
most likely, because yo can do a [list
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 03:51:38PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2014-09-30 12:20, Frank Barknecht wrote:
I see that there now are the rather peculiar list fromsymbol and
list tosymbol methods in [list], but the much needed list
foreach still is missing. Why?
most likely, because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2014-09-30 17:08, Frank Barknecht wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 03:51:38PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig
wrote:
On 2014-09-30 12:20, Frank Barknecht wrote:
I see that there now are the rather peculiar list fromsymbol
and list tosymbol methods
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 06:20:21PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
re-reading your email, wouldn't [list cat] be the equivalent of [list
drip], whereas [list foreach] is the equivalent of [list map]?
I took theses name from the source in x_list.c, where for some years now we
have:
//
[list cat] is already in Pd-l2ork.
-Jonathan
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:24 PM, Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 06:20:21PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
re-reading your email, wouldn't [list cat] be the equivalent of [list
drip], whereas
23 matches
Mail list logo
