[PD-dev] list math

cyrille henry cyrille.henry at la-kitchen.fr
Sun Feb 12 18:02:09 CET 2006

hello Ben

B. Bogart a écrit :
> cyrille henry wrote:
>> i don't fear redondancy.
> Hi Cyrille,
> Perhaps you don't but anyone who is learning PD should! Without
> consitancy and a lack of redundancy learning PD becomes a much more
> complex and confusing proposition.
> Wherever possible objects with the same functionality should be unified.
i want to unified mapping objects together. and list objects together.

i think mixing list object with mapping objects for a patch is 
confusing. mapping object should be consistant, and one should not use 
list object when he's looking for a mapping object.

> Otherwise things tend towards a state where the dominant (first written)
> object gets priority in patches and in workshops. Then the users miss
> the second object, that might be better, and then we end up with
> different camps of users using different versions of "functionally" the
> same object, and incompatible patches.
> Its my personal opinion that one should never write an object that
> overlaps more than 60% of the functionality of an already existing
> object. One should "fix" the existing object to cover the 40% the new
> object would allow.

ok. so let's embeded a [list_clip 0 1] in the mapping_clip.
what do you think?

> If you really want to write your own redundant objects then please don't
> bother releasing them. It just adds to the chaotic fuzz and it would
> serve the community much better to integrate rather than "fork" even if
> its hard and takes longer.

i don't think it's chaotic to have all object need for mapping in a 
mapping folder, and all object need for list processing in a list folder...

> Just an opinion as a PD instructor.

> .b.

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list