[PD-dev] BUG: namespace prefixes broken in 0.40
chris at mccormick.cx
Sat Nov 4 02:35:38 CET 2006
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:08:04AM +0000, carmen wrote:
> On Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 02:02:52PM +0800, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 10:39:50PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> > > >On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> > > >I advocate use of consistent syntax all over pd. Consistency is
> > > >more important than minimality. If pd's syntax is too minimal, it
> > > >encourages small syntax hacks that aren't portable to the rest of
> > > >the pd system, such as -y amp(0:100)(0:100).
> > >
> > > That is strange, I hadn't seen that before. I also have not seen
> > > gridflow before. I should say, then I am talking about things in
> > > common usage. There is definitely a lot of stuff shoe-horned into
> > > some of those draw and plot boxes. I wonder how to make that stuff
> > > work without the new syntax?
> > I would say that datastructures should be considered amongst things that
> > are "in common usage". It's simply not possible to use datastructures
> > for visualising audio data without the scaling syntax, and I think
> > there's a good reason that Miller made the syntax look like that -
> > it's not possible to do it without some kind of custom syntax like
> > that.
> so youre advocating arbitrary microformatting on a per-case basis instead of fixing the pd syntax so its not necessary?
I am not advocating anything except to say that datastructures are part
of the core of the language and should not be dismissed as an edge
case, and that an "arbitary microformatting" of some kind is neccesary
to implement that feature since the existing syntax couldn't handle it.
I think you are saying that there should be some greater more
intuitive/unified syntax that includes the ability to do this kind of
thing implicitly, right? So that future syntax changes wouldn't be
> hpoefully i just misread.. how do you generate/parse -y amp(0:100)(0:100) easily. maybe the nonexistent regexp external?
I am not sure what you mean by generate/parse it. Are you talking about
> > In my opinion datastructures should stay core to Pd as more and more
> > people create GOP datastructure abstractions for others to use. It's
> > possible to make amazing custom GUIs that will work with vanilla Pd
> > without requiring users to compile/install complicated externals.
> is it? that would be great. but i think its currently a pipedream...
I guess it's subjective but I think some of the GOP datastructure
abstractions out there have amazing GUIs that work with vanilla Pd
without requiring users to compile/install complicated externals. Want
examples? Check out Frank's work.
chris at mccormick.cx
More information about the Pd-dev