[PD-dev] [ pure-data-Patches-3400300 ] move cord drawing from pd to Tcl procs in pd-gui

SourceForge.net noreply at sourceforge.net
Wed Aug 31 07:59:46 CEST 2011


Patches item #3400300, was opened at 2011-08-29 15:08
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jancsika1
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=478072&aid=3400300&group_id=55736

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: puredata
Group: feature
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 6
Private: No
Submitted By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave)
Assigned to: Miller Puckette (millerpuckette)
Summary: move cord drawing from pd to Tcl procs in pd-gui

Initial Comment:
This patch replaces the raw Tcl code in the 'pd' process' C code with two Tcl procs in pdtk_canvas: draw_signal_cord and draw_message_cord.  This allows for customization of the cords from GUI plugins and Pd patches.  This also is a step in the direction of making the 'pd' --> 'pd-gui' communications Pd messages rather than Tcl code.


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

Comment By: Jonathan Wilkes (jancsika1)
Date: 2011-08-31 01:59

Message:
Oops, I guess "drawing instructions" is an ambiguous term.  I just mean the
coordinates: startx/y and endx/y.  All the other options could be done with
a conditional.

BTW-- any reason you are hardcoding a width of "2" in that proc? 
Shouldn't it be something like -width $::signalcordwidth, with
::signalcordwidth being defined in pd-gui.tcl?  (Could also use the options
database but that's probably overkill.)

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

Comment By: Jonathan Wilkes (jancsika1)
Date: 2011-08-30 23:23

Message:
I think you just need one proc with an arg corresponding to control/signal.
 All customization can be done elsewhere by referring to the tags.  I can't
think of any divergences between messagecord (controlcord?) and signalcord
that would require different initial drawing instructions; all future
features I can think of-- segmented cords or new cord
selection/deletion/edition-- would be handled identically for both cases,
no?  If you disagree, could you give an example of a way in which a
signalcord would ever require different drawing instructions than a
controlwire?

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

Comment By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave)
Date: 2011-08-30 12:36

Message:
I think having separate procs/messages for each connection type makes it
easier to customize.  And its just as easy to add a proc for any new
connection type as it is to add a block to a switch or something like that.
 Given that no new connection types have been added to Pd since its
inception, I don't think its a high priority concern.

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

Comment By: IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoelnig)
Date: 2011-08-30 03:09

Message:
i haven't had a look yet, but wouldn't it be better to use a single
tcl-proc "connect" (or "draw_cords") and specify the type of connection as
an argument?
this way it can be more easily expanded to other connection types.

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

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=478072&aid=3400300&group_id=55736



More information about the Pd-dev mailing list