[PD] [r pd-dsp-started] was: Re: samplerate~
danomatika at gmail.com
Wed Feb 19 13:30:22 CET 2020
Hah, then I'm wrong. If it's documented, it's canon! I honestly get lost in most of the internal messages and forget which ones are "public" and which aren't.
No, the regression isn't much different, it's more that things such as "dynamic patching" were never really intended form the start and became canon, to some extent.
> On Feb 19, 2020, at 12:00 PM, pd-list-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:46:07 +0100
> From: "Peter P." <peterparker at fastmail.com <mailto:peterparker at fastmail.com>>
> To: pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>
> Subject: Re: [PD] [r pd-dsp-started] was: Re: samplerate~
> Message-ID: <20200219094607.tsx4tjipkr32ystw at fastmail.com <mailto:20200219094607.tsx4tjipkr32ystw at fastmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> * Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com <mailto:danomatika at gmail.com>> [2020-02-19 10:38]:
>> I would also point out that internal messages such as pd-dsp-started don't really come with an expected behavior for user patches. Saying how it works is a "bug" belies that fact that I don't believe it was ever intended to be used for this and just because it can be grabbed via a [r] also doesn't guarantee anything.
> The method you point out is shown in the help patch of [samplerate~]
> without any reference that it should be considered a bug or temporary
>> This is also why it's so hard to change almost *any* behavior within Pd as you can never really be 100% certain you aren't breaking someone's end use case.
> Do you feel this regression condition is much different in other software?
> best, P
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list