[PD-dev] pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:21 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> Martin Peach wrote:
>>> Well isn't it just easier to use something with a different name? If you 
>>> have a backwards [pow] why not just call it [backwardspow] instead of 
>>> letting users guess which [pow] is the right one?
>> who would object to that?
>>
>> but which [pow~] _is_ the right one, and which one is backward?
> 
> this is so much a rhethoric question, which is practically so easy to
> answer and was already answered. i absolutely don't see the point of
> this question

hmm, martin suggested (supposedly joking) to call one of the [pow] 
objects [backwardspow] (which i guess would have reversed inlets).
now i guess that cyclones [pow~] is reveresed, should we just 
arbitrarily change it's name?

> 
> i think, that the question, why a new object [pack] is named pack is not
> rhetoric at all and isn't answered yet. so lets go again: why is [pack]
> from zexy called [pack]?
> 

because it is meant as a fully backwards-compatible replacement of 
[pack], with added features.
since i have been repeating this for several times now, i would be 
interested in the precise part of the above sentence that is unclear to you.

fmgasdr.
IOhannes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20090219/cb8fbcf2/attachment.bin>