[PD-dev] plans for next Pd release

Dan Wilcox danomatika at gmail.com
Thu Aug 5 14:35:11 CEST 2021

Personally, as this affects fundamental objects, I would do both. As this can be a workflow issue, my thinking is:

* Assume vast majority of users & use cases want fixed behavior (or don't particularly care), so update objects to use new/fixed behavior by default.

* Add a compatibility flag for older projects which *rely* on older behavior for *all* instances of the objects.

* Add a creation argument to the objects for those cases where people rely on the old behavior for certain situations, but also want the newer behavior for most other instances.

* Document the old versus new behavior in a help-patch subpath with comparisons.

> On Aug 5, 2021, at 10:55 AM, pd-dev-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 10:55:38 +0200
> From: Max <abonnements at revolwear.com <mailto:abonnements at revolwear.com>>
> To: pd-dev at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-dev at lists.iem.at>
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] plans for next Pd release
> Message-ID: <265a5773-2750-af8b-22a5-d01bdc4f6483 at revolwear.com <mailto:265a5773-2750-af8b-22a5-d01bdc4f6483 at revolwear.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> On 05.08.21 03:56, Miller Puckette via Pd-dev wrote:
>> I'm using that as rarely as I can, so far only for bug fixes.  I don't think
>> a limit on numerical accuracy is exactly a bug.  I think it's nicer to most
>> users not to have them have to bother with specifying a compatibility
>> version.
> Maybe make the numerical accuracy a settable variable with the current 
> depth as a default? (bonus: instant bitcrusher effect)

Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20210805/02bb837c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list