Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Thanks a lot for your answer! I was basically worried that if I miss 0.49 I'd have to wait like a year or so... the shorter release cycle is great news!
Christof
Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 02:28 Uhr Von: "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-dev pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and excitement : )
-I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Cheers Henri.
________________________________ De: Pd-dev pd-dev-bounces@lists.iem.at em nome de Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Enviado: sábado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28 Para: Christof Ressi Cc: pd-dev Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
I hope to get the intelligent patching features in - but not sure about the pointer-invalid problem; I've been thinking for years about how to do that and haven't liked any of the solutions I've seen yet.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:52:37AM +0000, Henri Augusto Bisognini wrote:
Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and excitement : )
-I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Cheers Henri.
De: Pd-dev pd-dev-bounces@lists.iem.at em nome de Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Enviado: s?bado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28 Para: Christof Ressi Cc: pd-dev Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Hi Miller, what problem do you see with this solution in particular: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/383 ?
you're right that deleting a scalar by pointer will invalidate all other pointers in the glist, but there's really no way around it...*) it also happens when you delete a scalar with the mouse. if it's fine there, why not also allow it via a method? at least I'm providing a valid pointer to the next scalar in the list.
Christof
*) unless we change the whole ref counting system to be per scalar and not per glist - which I'm not going to advocate here :-)
Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:00 Uhr Von: "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu An: "Henri Augusto Bisognini" msndohenri@hotmail.com Cc: "pd-dev@lists.iem.at" pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
I hope to get the intelligent patching features in - but not sure about the pointer-invalid problem; I've been thinking for years about how to do that and haven't liked any of the solutions I've seen yet.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:52:37AM +0000, Henri Augusto Bisognini wrote:
Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and excitement : )
-I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Cheers Henri.
De: Pd-dev pd-dev-bounces@lists.iem.at em nome de Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Enviado: s?bado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28 Para: Christof Ressi Cc: pd-dev Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
I actually can think of possible (but probably inefficient) ways how to avoid invalidating all pointers but such solutions can be integrated later... [delete( -> [pointer] is just the interface, the implementation can vary. OTOH, it's not exactly the most important Pd feature, so I don't mean to push this. personally, I mostly allocate scalars upfront and toggle them as needed.
Christof
Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:33 Uhr Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at An: "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Cc: "pd-dev@lists.iem.at" pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Hi Miller, what problem do you see with this solution in particular: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/383 ?
you're right that deleting a scalar by pointer will invalidate all other pointers in the glist, but there's really no way around it...*) it also happens when you delete a scalar with the mouse. if it's fine there, why not also allow it via a method? at least I'm providing a valid pointer to the next scalar in the list.
Christof
*) unless we change the whole ref counting system to be per scalar and not per glist - which I'm not going to advocate here :-)
Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:00 Uhr Von: "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu An: "Henri Augusto Bisognini" msndohenri@hotmail.com Cc: "pd-dev@lists.iem.at" pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
I hope to get the intelligent patching features in - but not sure about the pointer-invalid problem; I've been thinking for years about how to do that and haven't liked any of the solutions I've seen yet.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:52:37AM +0000, Henri Augusto Bisognini wrote:
Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and excitement : )
-I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Cheers Henri.
De: Pd-dev pd-dev-bounces@lists.iem.at em nome de Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Enviado: s?bado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28 Para: Christof Ressi Cc: pd-dev Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
I'd like to find a way that doesn't use glist_delete() which does a linear search to find the objects's predecessor - if you use this to cull items from a list of them the complexity is order n^2.
But this gives me an idea - the pointer object could perfectly well simply cache the previous item in the list so that the current one can be deleted and the previous one linked to the successor.
(Of course if the window's visible it's still very inefficient - so this might be a lot less important than I've been thinking it is.)
cheers miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:33:49PM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller, what problem do you see with this solution in particular: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/383 ?
you're right that deleting a scalar by pointer will invalidate all other pointers in the glist, but there's really no way around it...*) it also happens when you delete a scalar with the mouse. if it's fine there, why not also allow it via a method? at least I'm providing a valid pointer to the next scalar in the list.
Christof
*) unless we change the whole ref counting system to be per scalar and not per glist - which I'm not going to advocate here :-)
Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:00 Uhr Von: "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu An: "Henri Augusto Bisognini" msndohenri@hotmail.com Cc: "pd-dev@lists.iem.at" pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
I hope to get the intelligent patching features in - but not sure about the pointer-invalid problem; I've been thinking for years about how to do that and haven't liked any of the solutions I've seen yet.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:52:37AM +0000, Henri Augusto Bisognini wrote:
Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and excitement : )
-I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Cheers Henri.
De: Pd-dev pd-dev-bounces@lists.iem.at em nome de Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Enviado: s?bado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28 Para: Christof Ressi Cc: pd-dev Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
But this gives me an idea - the pointer object could perfectly well simply cache the previous item in the list so that the current one can be deleted and the previous one linked to the successor.
I will try to implement that! anyway, I think this is rather an implementation detail...
(Of course if the window's visible it's still very inefficient - so this might be a lot less important than I've been thinking it is.)
I'd say if efficiency is of uttermost importance, one shouldn't work with large lists of scalars in the first place :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Dienstag, 04. September 2018 um 06:00 Uhr Von: "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: "pd-dev@lists.iem.at" pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
I'd like to find a way that doesn't use glist_delete() which does a linear search to find the objects's predecessor - if you use this to cull items from a list of them the complexity is order n^2.
But this gives me an idea - the pointer object could perfectly well simply cache the previous item in the list so that the current one can be deleted and the previous one linked to the successor.
(Of course if the window's visible it's still very inefficient - so this might be a lot less important than I've been thinking it is.)
cheers miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:33:49PM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller, what problem do you see with this solution in particular: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/383 ?
you're right that deleting a scalar by pointer will invalidate all other pointers in the glist, but there's really no way around it...*) it also happens when you delete a scalar with the mouse. if it's fine there, why not also allow it via a method? at least I'm providing a valid pointer to the next scalar in the list.
Christof
*) unless we change the whole ref counting system to be per scalar and not per glist - which I'm not going to advocate here :-)
Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. September 2018 um 23:00 Uhr Von: "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu An: "Henri Augusto Bisognini" msndohenri@hotmail.com Cc: "pd-dev@lists.iem.at" pd-dev@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
I hope to get the intelligent patching features in - but not sure about the pointer-invalid problem; I've been thinking for years about how to do that and haven't liked any of the solutions I've seen yet.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:52:37AM +0000, Henri Augusto Bisognini wrote:
Hi! Since we got on the subject of 0.49 do you guys mind if i ask a couple questions about what's planned? Just out of curiosity and excitement : )
-I see there's a PR (#383) that adds a delete method for [pointer]. There's any forecast for that feature? I've been waiting that one heh
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Cheers Henri.
De: Pd-dev pd-dev-bounces@lists.iem.at em nome de Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Enviado: s?bado, 1 de setembro de 2018 21:28 Para: Christof Ressi Cc: pd-dev Assunto: Re: [PD-dev] roadmap for Pd-0.49?
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major release per year... I hope to speed this up now that there are much better scripts and tools in place (thanks mostly to other people!)
My own situation is that I go into heavy teaching mode again Sept. 24 so I'll either succeed and get out 0.49 before then or fail and only get it out late December. If I do get 0.49 working quickly I'll then aim for 0.50 in February or March.
For 0.49 I want to fix the escaping of '' characters (I had earlier tried to make it possible simply never to make a `` character visible to the user but this has turned out to be impossible). Also I want to fix pasting to place objects under the mouse (or at the very least, somewhere visible, not off the edge of the window)
For the medium term I'm thinking about revisiting array drawing to make it more efficient and controllable, and expanding the capabilities of the 'atom' box (lists; texts).
Also I have a vague plan to make an API feature to guide DSP graph sorting order, e.g., to request that one item in a patch be sorted in advance of another without them being connected by a patch cord.
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
cheers Miller
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 12:32:47AM +0200, Christof Ressi wrote:
Hi Miller,
I just wanted to ask what's your approximate roadmap for Pd 0.49? Do I need to hurry up if I want to propose stuff or is there plenty of time left? :-)
Christof
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Em sáb, 1 de set de 2018 às 23:53, Henri Augusto Bisognini < msndohenri@hotmail.com> escreveu:
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Hi, you can access see Pull Requests tagged with the 0.49 milestone on github, such as this https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/milestone/4
So I assume all of these will at least be considered, and yeah, intelligent patching is there :)
I'm really excited about this one https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/347 that'd definitely be a dream come true for me
Em ter, 4 de set de 2018 às 00:30, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com escreveu:
Em sáb, 1 de set de 2018 às 23:53, Henri Augusto Bisognini < msndohenri@hotmail.com> escreveu:
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Hi, you can access see Pull Requests tagged with the 0.49 milestone on github, such as this https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/milestone/4
So I assume all of these will at least be considered, and yeah, intelligent patching is there :)
This one is mired in controversy. Meanwhile, you can get "$0" functionality in a message box by preceeding it with "list prepend $0" so that $1 in the message box is teh patch's $0 and the other $ arguments are renumbered by one.
cheers Miller
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 12:31:51AM -0300, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
I'm really excited about this one https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/347 that'd definitely be a dream come true for me
Em ter, 4 de set de 2018 ??s 00:30, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com escreveu:
Em s??b, 1 de set de 2018 ??s 23:53, Henri Augusto Bisognini < msndohenri@hotmail.com> escreveu:
-Also will 0.49 come with the intelligent patching features IOhannes been working on? That will be a dream come true.
Hi, you can access see Pull Requests tagged with the 0.49 milestone on github, such as this https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/milestone/4
So I assume all of these will at least be considered, and yeah, intelligent patching is there :)
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
On 9/2/18 2:28 AM, Miller Puckette wrote:
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
i see, you've merged the infinite-undo branch into master. thanks a lot. would you also consider merging in the improved "intelligent patching" PR [374]?
it currently doesn't merge cleanly, but i could invest time to fix that.
gfadsrm IOhannes
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:31:33PM +0200, IOhannes m zm??lnig wrote:
On 9/2/18 2:28 AM, Miller Puckette wrote:
Looking back I've only been able to get out a bit fewer than one major Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
i see, you've merged the infinite-undo branch into master. thanks a lot. would you also consider merging in the improved "intelligent patching" PR [374]?
it currently doesn't merge cleanly, but i could invest time to fix that.
It looks like some of it (the 'connect' menu item and one form of multiple- connect) also appears in the PR I merged. I'd certainly like to get the rest in (and yes, it would help if you can figure out how to make it merge cleanly).
thanks M
gfadsrm IOhannes
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
On 9/2/18 10:54 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
It looks like some of it (the 'connect' menu item and one form of multiple- connect) also appears in the PR I merged.
yes. mainly because i started the infinite-undo implementation as a reponse to some users complaining that the multi-connect features would only partially-undo (namely: a single connection, out of multiple)
I'd certainly like to get the rest in (and yes, it would help if you can figure out how to make it merge cleanly).
i've updated PR374 so it now applies cleanly.
gfamsr IOhannes
On 9/2/18 2:28 AM, Miller Puckette wrote:
Anyway, I think whatever happens to 0.49 I can deal with feature PRs anytime this fall and get them into a release by late winter.
because a number of PRs got merged in the last few days, i'd like to bring PR#297 ("consistent dllextents across platforms") to your attention.
this basically uses the "amd64" suffix for the x86_64 architecture on *all* platforms, and introduces an "arm64" extension.
more importantly, under the hood it iterates over an array of (any number of) extensions, rather than using 2 distinct strings to provide exactly 2 extensions. this makes it pretty easy to add e.g. legacy extensions ("ia64" anybody?).
the PR has also been updated to include the extension handling for pd~ (finding "pdsched"), so the two places where dllextensions are searched for now use the same code, and thus support the same extensions (the current master will use different extensions, e.g. on the OpenBSD platform).
gfamrds IOhannes
Hello, I wanna be able to know the number of overlaps the [block~] object is set to...
any ideas how I should get that magical number in an external code? Is that information accessible anywhere?
thanks
On 9/10/18 11:01 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Hello, I wanna be able to know the number of overlaps the [block~] object is set to...
any ideas how I should get that magical number in an external code? Is that information accessible anywhere?
it's encoded into the s_sr member of the t_signal you get in the "dsp" routine. s_sr = overlap * samplerate = overlap * resamplefactor * sys_samplerate.
there's no way to distinguish between a signal that was upsampled by 2 and a signal that has an overlap-factor of 2.
dsamr IOhannes
thanks a lot ;)
Em seg, 10 de set de 2018 às 18:40, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at escreveu:
there's no way to distinguish between a signal that was upsampled by 2 and a signal that has an overlap-factor of 2.
that's what I feared :/
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
Christof Ressi -
Henri Augusto Bisognini -
IOhannes m zmölnig -
Miller Puckette