[PD-dev] bug when redrawing gop within gop inside a closed sub-patch

[Ivica Ico Bukvic]

> > This is IMHO the first valid argument against my suggested
> > implementation you made so far and one I would agree with.
> 
> This is because much of the rest was about peripheral issues such as what
> you think of pd itself, what can be done about pd itself, and about the
> wording you used against the current "raise all_cords". If that's late for
> you, it's because your thread seemed to be about so much more than
> the bug
> in question. If you spend much of your mails talking about other issues,
> then this is what you can expect to get.

<snip>

> Ok, I thought that you were talking about the code structure, and not
> the
> identifiers. So I was looking at your dot pattern and trying to guess how
> that could work.

Another view of this correspondence would be that I was simply trying to
clarify statements and bug-reports I made and which were challenged by your
questions (and some would even argue insults). Of course, the fact you
misunderstood what I said in response to one of your challenges certainly
did not help either :-)

I think as a contributor to a number of open source projects ranging from
Linux kernel to ALSA to self-standing applications to an array of
collaborative endeavors that fall outside CS domain, one of the greatest
obstacles to a project's growth I found to be overly protective nature
towards one's contributions or what some would portray as inability to
separate one's ego from the interests of the project as a whole, as then any
discussion pertaining to it can quickly flare up into a territorial
crapshoot where people talk but do not necessarily listen.

The very fact that we have agreed that the aforesaid problem and allied
issues identified in this thread require a patch, many of which pertain to
both vanilla and extended versions to me seem like a good opportunity to
improve upon the software at everyone's benefit. Likewise, improving code
readability is more likely to attract additional contributors. E.g. perhaps
it may be a good idea to include structure casting for all pertinent
identifiers you've kindly demoed a snippet of in your last email.

I am first to admit that I am a weekend warrior when it comes to coding and
as such am probably not the greatest C/C++ guru on the planet. Yet, the fact
is that here I've offered straightforward reasons why the specific line was
not a fix but a bandaid (something we've both agreed on) and perhaps more
importantly offered solutions to some of the long-standing problems
associated with the gui.

I think all this could've been done with a lot less noise, once again at
everyone's benefit.

Best wishes,

Ico