[PD] consolidate backward- and MaxMSP compatibility in Cyclone

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

Hi, I'm coming back from summer vacations and I wish a great 2016 for
everyone. By the way, as I believe, this year marks the 20th anniversary of
Pd, when and where's the party?


> A signal outlet, at the right of a message outlet, is not very common for
> Pd.
>

true, I can think only of sampstoms~ and mstosamps~


> it would not be my first choice. But not many objects are expected to have
> a fix like this, so just for once...
>

Exactly, that's how I feel, this is hopefully an one and only exception
case. I've been extensively checking all objects and this is the only one I
found an issue with backwards compatibility.

I still owe to the Pd list what I've listed as relevant regarding future
developments in cyclone (making it more up to date with newer Max
versions). It's not that much as I've said. I'll start a new thread soon
about it.

I was recruiting help in the development of cyclone as well and some people
showed interest, lets see how that goes.

thanks and a happy new year.
Alex

2015-12-30 16:16 GMT-02:00 Fred Jan Kraan <fjkraan at xs4all.nl>:

> Here my opinion on the situation. There is no license or law to guide or
> steer us, but past experiences can help decide which opinion leads to the
> best solution.
>
> On 2015-12-25 08:28 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
>
>>
>> 2015-12-23 18:36 GMT-02:00 katja <katjavetter at gmail.com
>> <mailto:katjavetter at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>    Summarizing, the discussion in this thread has so far rendered three
>>>    practical and simple solutions to improve MaxMSP compatibility in
>>>    Cyclone without breaking Pd patches (with average~ as an example):
>>>
>>
>    - MaxMSP compatibility through an extra inlet / outlet
>>>
>>
> > I still think that introducing an extra outlet is the least
> > complicated and least intrusive.
>
> A signal outlet, at the right of a message outlet, is not very common for
> Pd. And it leads to an object doing two things. Because of POLA*, added
> complexity and work, it would not be my first choice. But not many objects
> are expected to have a fix like this, so just for once...
>
>    - MaxMSP compatibility available through an extra operational mode
>>>
>>
> Not sure how an "extra operational mode" would work, but seems a little
>> complicated.
>>
>
> It would mean using an argument or message to switch behaviour. As average~
> already has two (optional) arguments, which become mandatory just to
> specify a third, I do not see it as a reasonable option.
>
>    - MaxMSP compatibility available through an extra class
>>>
>>
> > An extra class breaks compatibility, as you need another class name -
> > seems like a drastic or last resource solution.
>
> IMHO, this fits the situation best, as several objects have different
> names in Pd and Max/MSP. Apart from the extra object name.
>
>       - MaxMSP compatibility available with a -legacy startup flag
>
> The -legacy startup flag would mean you can have only one of the two
> solutions per Pd-instance. Introducing this flag (in Vanilla?) just for
> this object would be a bit of overkill.
>
> So I will try to combine the average2~ functionality into average~.
>
>>
>> cheers and merry xmas
>>
>> Greetings & happy 2016,
>
> Fred Jan
>
>
> *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160118/64626eef/attachment.html>