[PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?

[Christof Ressi]

I actually can think of possible (but probably inefficient) ways how to avoid invalidating all pointers but such solutions can be integrated later... [delete( -> [pointer] is just the interface, the implementation can vary. OTOH, it's not exactly the most important Pd feature, so I don't mean to push this. personally, I mostly allocate scalars upfront and toggle them as needed.

Christof

> Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:33 Uhr
> Von: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
> An: "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu>
> Cc: "pd-dev at lists.iem.at" <pd-dev at lists.iem.at>
> Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
>
> Hi Miller, what problem do you see with this solution in particular: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/383 ?
> 
> you're right that deleting a scalar by pointer will invalidate all other pointers in the glist, but there's really no way around it...*) it also happens when you delete a scalar with the mouse. if it's fine there, why not also allow it via a method? at least I'm providing a valid pointer to the next scalar in the list.
> 
> Christof
> 
> *) unless we change the whole ref counting system to be per scalar and not per glist - which I'm not going to advocate here :-)
> 
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:00 Uhr
> > Von: "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu>
> > An: "Henri Augusto Bisognini" <msndohenri at hotmail.com>
> > Cc: "pd-dev at lists.iem.at" <pd-dev at lists.iem.at>
> > Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
> >
> > I hope to get the intelligent patching features in - but not sure about the
> > pointer-invalid problem; I've been thinking for years about how to do that
> > and haven't liked any of the solutions I've seen yet.
> > 
> > cheers
> > Miller
> > 
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:52:37AM +0000, Henri Augusto Bisognini wrote:
> > > Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and excitement : )
> > > 
> > > -I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh
> > > 
> > > -Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
> > > 
> > > Cheers
> > > Henri.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________
> > > De: Pd-dev <pd-dev-bounces at lists.iem.at> em nome de Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu>
> > > Enviado: s?bado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28
> > > Para: Christof Ressi
> > > Cc: pd-dev
> > > Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
> > > 
> > > Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major
> > > release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better
> > > scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
> > > 
> > > My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so
> > > I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out
> > > late December.  If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in
> > > February or March.
> > > 
> > > For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '\' characters (I had earlier tried
> > > to make it possible simply never to make a `\` character visible to the
> > > user but this has turned out to be impossible).  Also I want to fix pasting
> > > to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible,
> > > not off the edge of the window)
> > > 
> > > For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it
> > > more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom'
> > > box (lists; texts).
> > > 
> > > Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting
> > > order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of
> > > another without them being connected by a patch cord.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime
> > > this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
> > > 
> > > cheers
> > > Miller
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
> > > > Hi Miller,
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
> > > >
> > > > Christof
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pd-dev mailing list
> > > Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pd-dev mailing list
> > > Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-dev mailing list
> > Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>