On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, tigital wrote:
...I think what IOhannes meant by not understanding is that you seem to imply that pd-0.37 has some new criteria for naming that is different than < pd-0.36 : is this true, and if so, what's the new way of doing things?
oops, and my nice template was for nothing then :( The new help patches have a "help-" prefix. so we'd have to rename them to help-whatever.pd
and ask gem users to help
with the documentation effort.
yes, this would probably result in better help-patches (because they might show real needs)
I think it would be nice if the help patches have a minimal functionality too, so the user can see the effect directly.
so, without a [gemwin] but with a [gemhead] ?
I would say with gemwin too. Doesn't hurt, does it ?
...[gemhead]'s would make for easier first time use/exploration, but also can make for unexpected renders if ya don't close the help patch before you test your new patch...sure a gemwin wouldn't hurt, just a copy/paste, but it can take up lots of space with all the possible messages, so maybe we need an abstraction, something like [pd window]?
You took a look at the template, by chance ? I think people are accostumed to change close the help patches after looking at them.
Also, I'm a big fan of making sure that all number boxes are set to the correct limits (ex. pix_kaleidoscope), thereby reducing the amount of work in the future for cut&paster's...I certainly don't like the way alot of the help patches are at the moment, that is, without functionality; that seems better for a manual than a reference patch...
I think that some of the help patches can take the role of the simple examples in the future. Would be nice if the examples would be more in a tutorial style, like the the once that are included with pd.
Guenter