[PD-dev] pd-devel 0.42 (was Re: pd-devel status report)

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

The pd/tk interface doesn't need to change, at least so far it  
hasn't.  That is one thing I have been working to keep completely  
intact.  One thing that will have to change is s_inter.c since it  
handles the startup procedure.  Mostly, I think it'll be drastically  
simplified as most of the #ifdefs can be removed.

So far the C changes have been (diff attached):

- deleted t_tk.h, t_tkcmd.c, t_main.c
- removed #include "t_tk.h" from the iemguis (g_*.c) (unneeded in any  
version)
- changed pdgui start line in s_inter to work on GNU/Linux

All that said, if you want to take this code Miller, then as a lump is  
really the only way.  Just taking bits would be missing the bulk of  
the improvements.  Or would be close to another rewrite in the amount  
of work, in my estimation.

.hc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: c-changes.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20090113/5c1a0dfd/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------



On Jan 13, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Miller Puckette wrote:

> Well, I'm using the ddd stuff in an extern I haven't released.  My  
> intent
> has been to rewrite all the Pd dialogs using ddd once it was stable.
> But now that other folks are working on the tk code I'll just wait to
> see what they propose.
>
> I'm split between the idea of incorporating pd.tk changes piecemeal  
> or as
> a lump.  If the latter, it would be important not to make too many  
> changes
> to the pd/tk interface...
>
> cheers
> Miller
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:39:13AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> Steffen Juul wrote:
>>>> That aside. Just making sure: This devel branch is branching of  
>>>> vanilla
>>>> 0.41-4 and the only focus is the gui (as opposed to also merging
>>>> devel-0.39 features)?
>>>
>>>
>> since 0.42 is just out, shouldn't all work be based on that?
>>
>>
>> afaict, most changes in pd.tk from 0.41 to 0.42 seem to be pretty  
>> trivial.
>> once i am able to get pd-devel running (i haven't re-tried yet), i  
>> would
>> volunteer to incorporate these changes
>>
>> @ miller: afaics the data driven dialogs (ddd) are only in a concept
>> stage, they are not used anywhere yet. is this correct?
>> if so, i would just ignore them for now :-)
>>
>>
>> @ pd-devel-team:
>> iirc, the idea of pd-devel so far was to not tuch any c-code but only
>> the tcl/tk side of things. how true is this? (i noticed quite a lot  
>> of
>> affected C-files; i really hope this will not make the attempts of
>> pd-devel void (i thought the deal was making pd-gui.tk usable  
>> should not
>> force miller to accept changes on the C-side)
>>
>> fgamsdr
>> IOhannes
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-dev mailing list
>> Pd-dev at iem.at
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no way to peace, peace is the way.       -A.J. Muste