[Pd] active and tot not right in pd-extended

[martin.peach at sympatico.ca]

> > Why exactly does the config file have to be platform specific?
> 
> It doesn't have to be, it just better that way.  Then users who know  
> their platform have to learn less new things to work with Pd.
>

But users who already know pd from another platform will have to learn a new way to handle its configuration :(
 
> >> How many users know how to edit this proposed config file?  Just
> >> about how many know how to edit the registry settings for Pd.  The
> >> FAQ can provide some help for getting people up to speed.  We need to
> >> build on existing knowledge so that people don't have learn Pd-
> >> specific things for trivial operations.  For what Pd does with it,
> >> the registry is simple to use.  Plus if you learn the registry in the
> >> process of figuring out manual Pd configs, then you can apply that
> >> knowledge to just about every other Windows program.
> >
> > I don't know _any_ windows program that encourages users to play  
> > around with its registry entries. That usually results in odd  
> > behaviour. MS wants the program to read and write the registry  
> > through the API, the user isn't supposed to even suspect that it  
> > might exist. The main reason for it seems to be for licensing and  
> > copy-protection secret keys. My registry seems to have thousands of  
> > entries. Browsing it is very tedious.
> > I propose that an xml file could be read/writeable by pd in the  
> > same way the setting dialogs work currently. Since it's a plain  
> > text file and out in the open, anyone could read it, and "experts"  
> > could edit it directly.
> > As long as the 'xml' is kept simple (no nesting, no dtd lookups) a  
> > parser should be doable in tcl, maybe a tcl xml parser already  
> > exists(?)
> >
> 
> We are on the same page, we just disagree about how to solve the  
> problem.  If the preference panels were fixed, then Windows users  
> wouldn't have to touch the registry, and people on other platforms  
> would benefit too.  Just changing the underlying format will mean  
> that users have to learn a different, arcane config file.  That  
> doesn't seem like a benefit to me.

The point is it shouldn't be arcane. It's just an ASCII text file with easy-to-understand tags. It could even include a full set of usage instructions as comments. To me the command line is arcane and the registry even more so.

Martin