[PD] Re: [PD-announce] mccallum_abstractions updated

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
David NG McCallum hat gesagt: // David NG McCallum wrote:

> The way I look at this project is all I wanted to do was to essentially 
> emulate a piece of hardware. When you walk away from your mixer and come 
> back to it, everything is as you left it. When you save a setup in 
> whatever studio software you use (logic, whatever), all of those 
> settings are saved with you. There's no concern for choosing a settings 
> file, saving a settings file, remembering what you called it and where 
> it was saved. I find the whole concept of manually dealing with settings 
> "files" on a user level to be really arduous and unnecessary.

But this is only half or less of the picture. True, you have things
like mixer settings or controller assingments in Logic et al., that
don't change often. But you also have the meat of all this, and that's
a piece of music (unless you work totally in the "interactive
installation" sphere). This piece of music, say a midi file or a drum
pattern, will *have* to be saved independently. That's what the
rrad.pattseq and even the older sseq familiy allows: save a "state"
wherever you want. My intention with Memento was to design a system
flexible enough to do this, too. That's why the Caretaker is a
seperate patch: caretaking doesn't really belong inside a state, IMO.

> On top of this, though, I would have one separate setup, say Setup 0, 
> that saves every 10 seconds or so just so that there still is a "last 
> configuration used" that the user can go back to.

As I mentioned in my previous mail: with the cartaker being a seperate
piece of software, so to say, it would be possible to do such
auto-saving as well, this is in the hand of the memento user. But it
isn't enforced.

> 	I wouldn't say I'm cheating. :) I'd say I'm making life easier. I 
> 	hate patching. Especially for repetitive tasks like the ones we're trying 
> to solve. The more that can be accomplished internally with these 
> abstractions, the better. I'm creating these abstractions so I can plop 
> them down and just start working. Putting a functional controller in a 
> patch shouldn't be an arduous process.

Well, I can understand you well, I guess (<sore hands crying "yes">) I
may rightfully be called conservative then: I tend to avoid it,
because it feels "internal", "undocumented" to Pd and not someting to
be used in public. ;) Or is it, Miller? I wonder, how the internal
messages interface will be in the long run.

> 	As for internal messages throwing off the DSP, I think that, once 
> again, this is just because I don't work that way. I don't trust Pd 
> nearly enough to do things like open patches or call abstractions while 
> I'm in the middle of a performance.

God, no! Probably I'm just Jack-challenged currently.

> 	But hey, aren't you happy I replaced my old 
> controllers-through-arguments system with a MIDI learn? I'm pretty happy 
> with that. Thanks for the suggestion. :)

Yep, that's a cool one. So you did get my mail? I had problems some
weeks ago with bouncing mails written to you, that's why I became
slightly silent.

ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__