[PD] "list foreach"?

[Miller Puckette]

Indeed, the 'tidy up" function is a good example of what I could adapt from
llork into vanilla.  (Another, major thing I'm planning to adopt is the
stacking order and infinite undo feature(s) ).  I have to say that's much
more interesting and important than list foreach (which I think neds to be
redesigned somewhat).

Not doing this right now because I'm 100% duty cycle teaching at the moment.

cheers
M

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:23:44AM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
> The main reason Pd-l2ork is not benefiting more users is because there aren't binaries/bundles for OSX and Windows.  There's a Pd-l2ork app I made for OSX some time back that has a small selection of libs I compiled with it, but I don't think there will be any more work on more platforms until we complete the move to Qt for the GUI.
> 
> Btw-- there are many facets of the development process where waiting for an ultimate design is counterproductive.  If you want to try devoting energy to Pd Vanilla, start with the "Tidy Up" function.  It is self-contained and a less-than-perfect design won't affect anything else in Pd.  Moreover, nearly anything you implement will be better than what's currently there.  (There's an improved "Tidy Up" in Pd-l2ork, btw.)
> 
> If instead you wait for an ultimate design, the users lose because they get zero productivity increase while you/they wait.
> 
> -Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, October 10, 2014 4:06 AM, Chris McCormick <chris at mccormick.cx> wrote:
>  
> 
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> I am beginning to think that this is the part of tonight's routine where
> I am made to eat my words. :)
> 
> On 10/10/14 15:15, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > Oops, I mean: which improvements would you like to port?
> > 
> > On Friday, October 10, 2014 3:14 AM, Jonathan Wilkes
> > <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >      I've used the same development process for Pd-extended and Vanilla
> > as I have with Pd-l2ork.  It is pretty close to the general outline you
> > gave in this thread.  There is no difference in working relationship-- I
> > send patches, write emails, test changes, say snarky things, etc.
> > 
> > But I'll happily work with you to improve Pd Vanilla and get as many
> > improvements as possible from Pd-l2ork ported into it.  Which
> > improvements you'd like to port.
> 
> I really appreciate this response and sentiment, thanks.
> 
> I must admit to ignorance again as to what features could go from
> Pd-l2ork into Pd. This is because I only know about Pd-l2ork from what
> Ico showed me at VT - SVG rendering, k-12 application, and infinite
> undo. I am probably forgetting other things he showed me - it was quite
> a demo!
> 
> The only concrete one that seems obvious to me is infinite undo, and it
> seems like there is at least some desire from Miller's side for this
> feature from what Ico said. It also seems like creating a branch of
> Miller's Pd with the Pd-l2ork patches applying cleanly would be a
> mammoth task and I can't ask you to do that because I don't have time or
> skills to do it myself. If you did this of course, you would be my
> absolute Pd hero.
> 
> Miller, what do you think about infinite undo?
> 
> In the future with things like "list foreach" do you think there is a
> middle ground we could follow where we implement it in a way that might
> go into Miller's Pd as well as into Pd-l2ork and then actually try to
> solicit feedback from Miller?
> 
> In some situations I know this may involve emailing him and the list
> first to try to reach a consensus on the implementation before starting.
> I also know that Miller sometimes gets handwavey in those situations
> because he hasn't figured out the ultimate design yet. In my experience,
> waiting for the ultimate design is quite often worth it. For example, I
> would have implemented the tosymbol/fromsymbol stuff completely
> differently but it's now obvious to me that Miller's implementation
> kicks the crap out of anything I'd thought of in terms of flexibility
> and wider applicability.
> 
> I may again be being ignorant but it I don't remember any kind of
> submitting-back-to-Pd process with "list cat" so I assume it's not
> something that generally happens right now due to (understandable)
> frustration with the process etc.
> 
> I feel like it would be great for everyone involved if we could keep
> more compatibility with these base objects and that is my agenda in
> advocating for it. I also understand you guys might be totally
> disinterested in doing that work (Ico's frustration case in point), and
> it might hold you back too much, and that's ok too. I need to push for
> it though because I think it's of great benefit to many users (including
> myself) if we can get it right.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris.
> 
> -- 
> http://mccormick.cx/

> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list