On Feb 16, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
From: Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk Subject: Re: [PD] FLOSS book Lists chapter To: "Mathieu Bouchard" matju@artengine.ca Cc: pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 1:24 AM
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:55:24 -0500 (EST) Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
I don't see how the sentence « those diagrams are
source code » doesn't
say that there's (almost) a one-to-one
correspondence.
Yikes, I tried running that through De Morgans What is it you _do_ see there? Or does the law of the excluded middle prevent us from straying there? :)
But the one-to-one correspondence isn't exact. I could
make a list of ways
in which it isn't.
Please, a list I'd like to see out of curiosity when you have a mo. I thought about that long and hard, mainly it was things like ambiguous connections where filaments cross over another object inlet, or horror of horrors, identical objects copied on top of each other and wired in place...I've been caught out that way before.
Nevertheless, with a little care, a screenshot can be
made in a way that can be read by someone that can
repatch it if the .pd
file itself has not been published.
I'll be honest it took a _lot_ of care. Out of well over 1000 diagrams one or two ambiguities have raised peoples annoyance enough to email me a "complaint". That's quite a good record I think, but I spent many hours re-arranging objects and coords to get clear and unambiguous patches. What some recognise as my style now was heavily influenced by the writing and the need to have patches unambiguously read by eyes other than my own.
1 Don't have wires overlapping object boxes, object xlets, or object
text* 2 Avoid horizontal wiresWhat else is there?
-Jonathan
- good layout to represent the flow of the data
- encapsulation into rational chunks
- and more...
.hc
"[T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own
government." - Martin Luther King, Jr.