<p dir="ltr">Indeed. Let's hope pd/extended adopt these soon.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Best wishes,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Ico</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 3, 2013 7:31 AM, "Roman Haefeli" <<a href="mailto:reduzent@gmail.com">reduzent@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 05:53 -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:<br>
> On 07/03/2013 04:31 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:<br>
> > On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 03:56 -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> I guess we need to clarify what "not usable at all" means. If a patch<br>
> >> works but one optional gop hsl is not visible, personally I would say<br>
> >> that one element may not be usable and only temporarily.<br>
> > Many of my patches are not usable at all without GOP GUIs visible. And I<br>
> > cannot fix it myself as either it breaks pd-vanilla|pd-extended or<br>
> > pd-l2ork or it looks dead ugly. So yes, it breaks compatibility in a<br>
> > serious way. And I also do not see the temporary aspect of it. I as a<br>
> > patch developer can't provide a solution to this.<br>
> ><br>
> > This is _the_ reason I don't even try to bother to make my patches work<br>
> > in pd-l2ork. And I even need to tell people that they shouldn't use<br>
> > pd-l2ork when they want to use my patches.<br>
> ><br>
> The solution is the one you stated above--stick to one particular flavor<br>
> of pd and run with it. I for one believe the sooner I switch my patches<br>
> to a more consistent drawing mechanism the less I will have to deal with<br>
> down the road. pd has two choices:<br>
><br>
> 1) keep the same inconsistent behaviour for as long as it exists causing<br>
> problems in other places for the patch developers such as yourself (e.g.<br>
> autopatching), in the end causing the same amount of work (whether you<br>
> fix whatever is currently misaligned or do that while patching because<br>
> your autopatch feature did not align your objects properly is as far as<br>
> I can tell the same amount of work, of course, assuming that you do use<br>
> autopatch--I do, so this is very important to me)<br>
><br>
> 2) fix this at some later date at which point you will have a larger<br>
> library of patches you've built between now and that later date that<br>
> will require fixing because they relied on the current inconsistent way<br>
><br>
> Consider also how pd does not properly account for labels on iemguis or<br>
> comments and does not mind having them stick outside GOP. Or how<br>
> dynamically changed iemgui objects inside GOP do not get their<br>
> visibility rechecked to see if they still fit within GOP and then spill<br>
> outside it only to disappear when you copy and paste the said GOP. These<br>
> are all fixed within pd-l2ork. I believe these are very pressing issues<br>
> for me as L2Ork's entire GUI scoring system is built around iemguis and<br>
> scalars and I want to make sure that others developing similar scores<br>
> (or expanding upon the existing) for the ensemble do not encounter such<br>
> inconsistencies that can be abused for temporary solutions that later<br>
> break because such bugs have been fixed, rendering their scoring engine<br>
> unusable.<br>
><br>
> tl;dr version: I find issues of GUI inconsistency critical and prefer to<br>
> fix them sooner rather than later and do not want to worry about legacy<br>
> behaviour that is incorrect to begin with, because the longer one waits,<br>
> the more they'll have to fix later when the similar/identical fix is<br>
> implemented in their flavor of pd.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your considerations. I actually agree with you in every<br>
respect. I also wouldn't mind having GUI glitches fixed in pd-extended|<br>
pd-vanilla, even if it means having to go through all my patches to fix<br>
them. However, things haven't changed in pd-vanilla|pd-extended yet and<br>
I see myself forced to decide which route to go.<br>
<br>
Roman<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>