On Jul 3, 2013 7:31 AM, "Roman Haefeli" <reduzent@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 05:53 -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 04:31 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 03:56 -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
> >>
> >> I guess we need to clarify what "not usable at all" means. If a patch
> >> works but one optional gop hsl is not visible, personally I would say
> >> that one element may not be usable and only temporarily.
> > Many of my patches are not usable at all without GOP GUIs visible. And I
> > cannot fix it myself as either it breaks pd-vanilla|pd-extended or
> > pd-l2ork or it looks dead ugly. So yes, it breaks compatibility in a
> > serious way. And I also do not see the temporary aspect of it. I as a
> > patch developer can't provide a solution to this.
> >
> > This is _the_ reason I don't even try to bother to make my patches work
> > in pd-l2ork. And I even need to tell people that they shouldn't use
> > pd-l2ork when they want to use my patches.
> >
> The solution is the one you stated above--stick to one particular flavor
> of pd and run with it. I for one believe the sooner I switch my patches
> to a more consistent drawing mechanism the less I will have to deal with
> down the road. pd has two choices:
>
> 1) keep the same inconsistent behaviour for as long as it exists causing
> problems in other places for the patch developers such as yourself (e.g.
> autopatching), in the end causing the same amount of work (whether you
> fix whatever is currently misaligned or do that while patching because
> your autopatch feature did not align your objects properly is as far as
> I can tell the same amount of work, of course, assuming that you do use
> autopatch--I do, so this is very important to me)
>
> 2) fix this at some later date at which point you will have a larger
> library of patches you've built between now and that later date that
> will require fixing because they relied on the current inconsistent way
>
> Consider also how pd does not properly account for labels on iemguis or
> comments and does not mind having them stick outside GOP. Or how
> dynamically changed iemgui objects inside GOP do not get their
> visibility rechecked to see if they still fit within GOP and then spill
> outside it only to disappear when you copy and paste the said GOP. These
> are all fixed within pd-l2ork. I believe these are very pressing issues
> for me as L2Ork's entire GUI scoring system is built around iemguis and
> scalars and I want to make sure that others developing similar scores
> (or expanding upon the existing) for the ensemble do not encounter such
> inconsistencies that can be abused for temporary solutions that later
> break because such bugs have been fixed, rendering their scoring engine
> unusable.
>
> tl;dr version: I find issues of GUI inconsistency critical and prefer to
> fix them sooner rather than later and do not want to worry about legacy
> behaviour that is incorrect to begin with, because the longer one waits,
> the more they'll have to fix later when the similar/identical fix is
> implemented in their flavor of pd.

Thanks for your considerations. I actually agree with you in every
respect. I also wouldn't mind having GUI glitches fixed in pd-extended|
pd-vanilla, even if it means having to go through all my patches to fix
them. However, things haven't changed in pd-vanilla|pd-extended yet and
I see myself forced to decide which route to go.

Roman