should toys be part of Pd distribution?

[Guenter Geiger]

x7 writes:
 > 
 > dont know, toys work well as externals as well as do ggexts (+ othrs.),
 >  maybe put effort into distribution/collection/editorial/coordination
 > of xtrnls + ~/.pdrc's which loads all exts 4 me and rather keep 'pd' (core
 > program) as min 2 max 
 > alohe
 > 

I like the externals, as it gives me the possiblity to experiment more 
while programming.

It should be well thought over what goes into pd and what does not,
as people consider objects in the main distribution as "fixed" and
should be able to rely on their behaviour ..

Therefore I would leave complex objects like fiddle, bonk, paf out of
pd, and putting the basic ones in (expr would be my favorite here).

As to including graphical objects.
The ggext graphical objects are currently not really fit to go into pd 
as they are.

(But meanwhile I know how I would code them inside pd)

What I would like to see is a layer over the graphic routines, which
would make it possible to port pd to other GUI libraries easily.

This should be easy as code used for graphics is still small.


Guenter

   


 >