[PD] Cyclone in vanilla?

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Tue Apr 22 16:55:08 CEST 2008

On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:52 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> 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
> [abs~].
> 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.

Then we should also add streaming... wait this is starting to sound a  
bit like Pd-extended ;)



'You people have such restrictive dress for women,’ she said,  
hobbling away in three inch heels and panty hose to finish out  
another pink-collar temp pool day.  - “Hijab Scene #2", by Mohja Kahf

More information about the Pd-list mailing list