[PD] Cyclone in vanilla?
mpuckett at imusic1.ucsd.edu
Thu Apr 24 18:38:07 CEST 2008
This is a serious problem -- putting a backwards "pow~" into Pd might
be worse than having none at all. But writing a book that uses "pow"
backwards would be even worse than having one in Pd!
Maybe the "right" thing would be to use another name such as "power~".
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:08PM +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
> Yep. What is to be done about that? Should we keep
> to the conventions of vanilla and Pd generally by
> changing that?
> I am torn on this. I would have a lot of rewriting to do
> but would like to see conventions observed.
> OTOH, maybe compatibility with patches out there using Cyclone
> [pow~] should be respected as a priority.
> BTW it's very important for to know. If it changes after I
> publish the book I will hire a bounty hunter to bring me
> the fingers of whoever made the changes :)
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:39:07 -0400
> marius schebella <marius.schebella at gmail.com> wrote:
> > btw, are all pow~ objects reversed? right inlet^left inlet?
> > marius.
> > Andy Farnell wrote:
> > > Did I read that Cyclone is to be incorporated into vanilla Pd?
> > >
> > > Having discovered too late that [pow~] is not part of vanilla
> > > I am about to remove the constraint of using vanilla Pd for
> > > the synthetic sound design book since it is incomplete without
> > > basic mathematical operators.
> > >
> > > andy
> > >
> Use the source
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list