[PD-dev] [ pure-data-Feature Requests-3531000 ] Proposal for an alternative file format

[Rich E]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:52 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-06-03 22:30, s p wrote:
> > That's a very good point, ... it's a good idea to specify GUI
> > infos, for better interoperability, but it should be explicitly
> > said that this is optional information
>
> gui information (e.g. spatial layout) is not always optional,
> sometimes it is mandatory (as in: the patch's behaviour depends on the
> layout)
>
>
The spatial layout dictates what connections are made, but in the .pd,
doesn't this remark
<http://puredata.info/docs/developer/PdFileFormat#r32> (from
puredata.info's docs on connect) still hold true?:

"Objects are virtually numbered in order of appearance in the file,
starting from zero. Inlets and outlets of the objects are numbered
likewise."

What I'm trying to say is, the patch is reconstructed based on the order of
elements within the .pd file (the proposal suggests using id's in .json).
 I'm I correct in assuming that spatial location is used by pd to write the
patch, but its only use when reading the patch is to decide where it should
be drawn?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20120604/951f91ef/attachment.htm>