[PD] 'pure' pd DSP abstractions wanted!

[Jamie Bullock]

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 03:29 +0200, zmoelnig at iem.at wrote:
> Quoting Jamie Bullock <jamie at postlude.co.uk>:
> 
> > On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 09:54 -0400, Enrique Erne wrote:
> >> Hi Jamie
> >>
> >> It's not much but might be helpful to port other stuff to purepd.
> >>
> >> you'll find
> >> gt~.pd (>~)
> >> lt~.pd (<~)
> >> sgn~.pd
> >>
> >> http://www.netpd.org/eni/purepd/
> >
> > That's great actually, and I'd love to contribute back into this.
> > However, if I'm not mistaked aren't there two purepd projects
> > netpd/purepd and Hans's purepd in pd svn? Would it be worth feeding your
> > patches into Hans's, and then any other abstractions I make/find I can
> > also feed into svn?
> >
> 
> just out of curiosity: >~.pd, <~.pd, sgn~ and what else in zexy are  
> already pd-vanilla abstractions (some of them are both abstractions  
> and externals for performance reasons); is there an advantage in  
> collecting these things in yet another arbitrary (as opposed to  
> grouped by functionality) library?

I think I kind of addressed this in my reply to Patrick, but I find the
current situation with libraries of abstractions and externals a bit
unsatisfactory. It would really be better if we separated out the
storage layout (svn) and the user presentation bit, so that users could
group externals/pathches by tag, or some othe
non-hierarchical/non-exclusive grouping.

Jamie

-- 
www.postlude.co.uk
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiebullock