<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span></span>----- Original Message -----<br></div><div><div> > From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at><br> > To: pd-dev@iem.at<br> > Cc: <br> > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:13 PM<br> > Subject: Re: [PD-dev] converting OSCx to a template library<br> > <br>> On 10/20/2012 11:56 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:<br>>> On 10/20/2012 04:17 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:<br>>>> <br>>>> I'd happily ditch it if there was a drop in replacement. For <br>> example, I've<br>>>> had many students come to me with the most popular <br>> Processing<--> Pd starter<br>>>> patch, and its based on oscx. If it wasn't include, that patch <br>> would not work<br>>>> at all. So buggy but working is still better than not at
all.<br>>> <br>>> so what is wrong with my patches? they _are_ drop-in replacements.<br>>> <br>>> if those students use PdX (with [initbang]) one could even writen <br>> [OSCroute]<br>>> wrapper.<br>> <br>> I don't know if anything is wrong with them or not, or whether they are <br>> fully<br>> compatible or not. I can't take on the maintenance of any more libraries, <br>> so<br>> I'm not going to test them. I encourage you to take it on if you think its<br>> important. oscx is there and already included, that's my point.<br><br>Isn't he just fixing the existing library?<br><br>> <br>> .hc<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Pd-dev mailing list<br>> Pd-dev@iem.at<br>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev<br>> </div> </div> </div></body></html>