[PD] Cyclone in vanilla?

Frank Barknecht fbar at footils.org
Tue Apr 22 09:52:17 CEST 2008

Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:

> I therefore define "missing" as when the best answer on the table is
> "use [expr~]" or "use this equivalence made of more than 2 or 3
> objects"

What about vanilla-abstractions? Pd-vanilla currently only ships with
a handful of abstractions (rev123~.pd, hilbert~.pd) intended to be put
in the path. Some of the missing math objects could be included as
simple default abstractions, like [sin~]. Zexy went this route for

Another point to take into account could be how many times an
operation has been coded as an external before. [abs~] currently was
coded four times to my knowledge (markex, zexy, creb, cyclone). This
shows, that there is a demand for this operation, otherwise people
wouldn't have bothered to code it. So yes, [abs~] would be good to
have in Pd. 

I'm reluctant to mention [counter] here, which also was coded many
times, unfortunatly in incompatible ways. I'm reluctant, because
[counter] is too basic to be included. Call me elitist, but I believe
counting is such a basic and important operation, Pd users should't
learn how to count in Pd itself.

Finally a motivation to include more binary objects may be efficiency.
Some [list]-abs are much slower than necessary ([list-idx],
[list-drip]) and these operations would be good to have in Pd as well.

 Frank Barknecht                                     _ ______footils.org__

More information about the Pd-list mailing list