[PD-dev] presets... why not?

[guenter geiger]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
> > > I think that states should be saved relative to the patch directory,
> > > which is the case with state.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> I changed my mind: saving relative is okay, I think now. But still I
> don't like, if a preset mechanism just proposes a filename
> automatically, if nothing was specified.
>
> I'd prefer it, if the attempt to save a setting will ask the user for
> a filename instead, just as Pd asks at the first "File -> Save". A way
> to programmatically set the filename should be included, though.
> Either through arguments or [set filename( messages.

I think that the real difference in concept, between what are you
describing and the state external is that

1) the state can be stored in memory
2) the state(s) are written into a single file

I see several advantages in this approach:
- possible to save several state sets
- its faster to load new states (they are in memory already)
- the directories don't get polluted by single state files

The idea of having one file per state was to make it easier to
handle single states outside of pd, renaming, copying etc.
At the end I didnt use this feature too often, because it was easier
to do everything from within pd.

Guenter

> --
>  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev
>