[PD-dev] even more confusion?

[Krzysztof Czaja]

hi Guenter,

thank you for a clarification... and sorry:  it was probably me
to cause all the confusion...

The best way of showing that I mean so, would be attempting to
improve receive's handling of the 'set' message -- but I do not
know how to do it right.

The main trouble is how to sense which 'set' is remote, and which
has come via an inlet.  It might be done by not binding a [receive]
itself to a symbol, but binding a proxy object instead.  However,
it would involve a complete rewrite of the class, and this is
something which should involve much better understanding of the
'core' than mine!

Hoping you are well now, and there is still some time left for
your holidays,

Krzysztof

guenter geiger wrote:
 > Probably I made a mistake when merging the "set"  messages, thats why
 > nobody reported the bug against the external packages.
 >
 > I got sick after that day and spend half of my holidays in bed, thats
 > why I couldn't continue working/testing the changes I made.
 >
 > About changing the core of pd behind Millers back:
 >
 > This was definitely not my intention, I rather tried to setup a repository
 > for those who like to send patches to Miller, in order to have the
 > possibility to test them, select those that fit and throw away those who
 > are useless.
 >
 > Finally Miller will have the say what he accepts for pd and what not.
 > I think it is very important to make development for pd as open as
 > possible, same for GEM. I am just trying to propose a "procedure" how
 > to contribute to pd, because I think that several contributions may get
 > lost because there is not an official way to do so.