no. but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of <orgfile>”.
But no one suggested to use “copy of CombFilter 1.2”, etc….
Next version would be "CombFilter 1.3”. It makes no sense to put this "copy of” etc. in front of the patchname. That is out of context, cause no one would do that in real life.
I simply suggest that instead of starting from “untitled”, one starts from the last saved name, in this case "Combfilter 1.2” or it could be “Combfilter1”. It is really not about the actual name, it is about the starting point when doing a “save as”.
How you and anyone else decide to go on from there, do naming of patches is up to you, I am not judge of other peoples workflow.
Anyway, I think the argument is getting pointless, I made my point and I think most people on the list agreed with me, that last saved name is the right starting point for a “save as”. Whatever people do from there is up to them. Cal it a bug, call it different behaviour, I am no judge of that.
Thanks to everyone and I wish you all a good day.
Best wishes, Jakob
On 19 Sep 2019, at 09:31, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
(one of the problems with this thread is, that i cannot refrain from answering...)
On 18.09.19 19:26, jakob skouborg wrote:
the days of "Copy of Copy of Kopie von Comb filter 1.2 (17.12.1997) final copy.pd" ought to be gone for good.
That is not what what I am saying or expecting.
no. but it's one of the consequences of suggesting a scheme like "copy of <orgfile>". all *i* am saying is that i don't want such a scheme.
It is really very simple, just start from the name of last time the patch was saved, like basically any other app in the world does today.
did you notice that i never said anything against *that*? actually, i think it's a pretty sane default (and so far everybody seems to agree).
if you want to do versioning of patches, you probably should look into a proper version-control-system, like 'git'. seriously.
I think that is overcomplicating the "save as" function a little bit.
i never said that this should go into the "save as" functionality. what i said is that if you want to manage multiple versions of a patch, you shouldn't use filenames at all, but look instead look into a system that was designed to manage multiple versions of files.
i think that the suggestion shouldn't contain spaces at all
[...]> The name heres was just an example.
<wink> so how should we fix the current behaviour if the/a suggested solution is "just an example" and bogus? </wink>
Of course I call abstractions something else, without spaces.
I am talking about main/master patches. All though you can still call them “Patchname1”, etc.
the thing is, Pd doesn't really differentiate between "main/master patches" and "abstractions".
Anyway, I am just curious about that the rationale is for starting from “untitled”, instead of last saved name? Cause to me it doesn’t make sense at all.
i agree with dan here, that (if it's so annoying to people then ) it's simply a bug and should be fixed.
rfgamsrd IOhannes
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev