[PD] FLOSS book Lists chapter

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:

> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> Subject: Re: [PD] FLOSS book Lists chapter
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Mathieu Bouchard" <matju at artengine.ca>, "Andy Farnell" <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>, pd-list at iem.at
> Date: Saturday, February 19, 2011, 12:53 AM
> 
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > --- 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
> 
> 
> - good layout to represent the flow of the data
> - encapsulation into rational chunks
> - and more...

That's all true.  I guess I'm limiting it to unwanted ambiguities that 
_cannot_ be resolved by looking at the patch.  So things like fanouts  
and [r] creation order wouldn't count as long as having a different 
connection/creation order doesn't upset the function of the patch.

> 
> .hc
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "[T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today
> [is] my own  
> government." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
> 
> 
> 
>