[PD-dev] an idea for Pd structure

[guenter geiger]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, B. Bogart wrote:
> Right now the control bus just prepends a string to set the destination
> (like text) but just using OSC formatted messages for interal
> communication would have significant advantages.

Is there a reason why this has to be done with OSC messages instead
of pd messages ? IMO opinion it makes pd harder to use if you mix
concepts. Is there a significant improvement from using
/[patchname]/[abstraction-name]/f1 over
[patchname] [abstraction-name] f1 ?

(except the spaces problem, which has to be solved separately)

I even think that the OSC messages should be converted into pd messages
immediately, without using the OSCroute object.

Well, a question of taste, but thats my taste anyhow. same for naming
of states. should be symbols IMO, without "/"

>
> Ok all that was to say that its most flexible and modular to have a number
> of float values that have OSC names. I wonder if there would be a way to
> have a standard OSC namespace for a patch that all objects can be
> referenced via OSC something like /[patchname]/[abstraction-name]/f1 for

One problem might be that this naming is ambiguous, there could be
hundreds of  /[patchname]/[abstraction-name]/f1

> first float. I think OSC really becomes powerful when the namespace
> reflects the structure of the patch, rather than being wholly generated
> and imagined by the user. this opens the door to extracting the function
> of a patch from the OSC namespace and simply being able to standardize so
> that patches not made to work together over OSC magically do.

Great idea, but again, why has this to be done with OSC ?
I am very much for OSC compatibility of pd, but we should not change the
style of the pd language for that. I think this would be possible to
be implemented in pd messages instead of OSC messages. Just replace the
"/" by a " ".

Guenter

>
> > Hallo,
> > B. Bogart hat gesagt: // B. Bogart wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interpolation is something I talked about with Cyrille at the
> > convention and definitely something, I'd like to somehow integrate
> > into Memento.  However I haven't yet thought about a way that is
> > "stupid" enough for general use here. How are you (intending to) doing
> > it?
> >
> >> Of course it would be great if state-saving was built right into PD.
> >
> > I had this crazy idea when talking with Miller about this, that it
> > could be nice to extend the basic data type objects like "float" with
> > a OSC-tag. Instead of [float 0] ony would write [float 0 /freq], [f 0
> > $1/freq] or even [f 0 $0/freq] to make that float value state-saveable
> > and accessible through some OSC inlet or sender.  Then the currently
> > nessecary [commun] objects could go away, and [originator] and
> > [caretaker] could become an ext-/internal.
> >
> > Ciao
> > --
> >  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PD-dev mailing list
> > PD-dev at iem.at
> > http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev
>