[PD] FLOSS book Lists chapter

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [PD] FLOSS book Lists chapter
> To: "Mathieu Bouchard" <matju at artengine.ca>
> Cc: pd-list at iem.at
> Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 1:24 AM
> 
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:55:24 -0500 (EST)
> Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how the sentence « those diagrams are
> source code » doesn't 
> > say that there's (almost) a one-to-one
> correspondence.
> 
> Yikes, I tried running that through De Morgans 
> What is it you _do_ see there? Or does the law of the
> excluded 
> middle prevent us from straying there? :)
> 
>  
> > But the one-to-one correspondence isn't exact. I could
> make a list of ways 
> > in which it isn't. 
> 
> Please, a list I'd like to see out of curiosity when you
> have a mo.
> I thought about that long and hard, mainly it was things
> like
> ambiguous connections where filaments cross over another
> object inlet, or horror of horrors, identical objects
> copied
> on top of each other and wired in place...I've been caught
> out
> that way before.
> 
> > Nevertheless, with a little care, a screenshot can be
> 
> > made in a way that can be read by someone that can
> repatch it if the .pd 
> > file itself has not been published.
> 
> I'll be honest it took a _lot_ of care. Out of well over
> 1000 diagrams
> one or two ambiguities have raised peoples annoyance enough
> to email
> me a "complaint". That's quite a good record I think, but I
> spent
> many hours re-arranging objects and coords to get clear and
> unambiguous
> patches. What some recognise as my style now was heavily
> influenced by
> the writing and the need to have patches unambiguously read
> by eyes other
> than my own.

1 Don't have wires overlapping object boxes, object xlets, or object text*
2 Avoid horizontal wires

What else is there?

-Jonathan