[GEM-dev] how close are we...

[guenter geiger]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, tigital wrote:
> ...I think what IOhannes meant by not understanding is that you seem to
> imply that pd-0.37 has some new criteria for naming that is different
> than < pd-0.36 :  is this true, and if so, what's the new way of doing
> things?

oops, and my nice template was for nothing then :(
The new help patches have a "help-" prefix. so we'd have to rename them
to help-whatever.pd

>
> >
> >>   and ask gem users to help
> >>> with the documentation effort.
> >> yes, this would probably result in better help-patches (because they
> >> might show real needs)
> >>
> >>> I think it would be nice if the help patches have a minimal
> >>> functionality
> >>> too, so the user can see the effect directly.
> >>
> >> so, without a [gemwin] but with a [gemhead] ?
> >
> > I would say with gemwin too. Doesn't hurt, does it ?
>
> ...[gemhead]'s would make for easier first time use/exploration, but
> also can make for unexpected renders if ya don't close the help patch
> before you test your new patch...sure a gemwin wouldn't hurt, just a
> copy/paste, but it can take up lots of space with all the possible
> messages, so maybe we need an abstraction, something like [pd window]?

You took a look at the template, by chance ?
I think people are accostumed to change close the help patches after
looking at them.

> Also, I'm a big fan of making sure that all number boxes are set to the
> correct limits (ex. pix_kaleidoscope), thereby reducing the amount of
> work in the future for cut&paster's...I certainly don't like the way
> alot of the help patches are at the moment, that is, without
> functionality; that seems better for a manual than a reference patch...

I think that some of the help patches can take the role of the simple
examples in the future. Would be nice if the examples would be more
in a tutorial style, like the the once that are included with pd.

Guenter