[PD] [autoscale] first release
hans at eds.org
Fri Nov 5 21:34:42 CET 2004
On Nov 5, 2004, at 1:53 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2004, at 3:19 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>> Anyways, this is really cool and very useful in lots of situations.
>> I am going to be using it extensively in my [hid] objects... but this
>> leads me to where it should go from here. I am thinking that I should
>> incorporate this behavior into the maxlib [scale] object (but the Gem
>> nameclash is an annoyance... [gem_scale] pretty please :) then Gem
>> [scale] could go into a separate folder, like "Gem-deprecated", for
>> backwards compatibility).
> I actually reverted from using maxlib_scale in rradical and I'm now
> using an abstraction for scaling. I'm sure, the speed differences are
> minimal (at least for linear scaling), the abstraction is almost
> trivial and it's simply one problem less to worry about. So why not
> keep it as an abstraction?
The question was about whether they should be separate objects or not.
I think I'd prefer it to be written in Pd rather than C, but maxlib's
scale is already there, so I figured I could easily make the
"Information wants to be free."
More information about the Pd-list