Hi Norbert,
Yes, I think the latest state of the development of FTM for Pd was already pretty close (since the last adaptations to Max 5 we probably took back a little distance). But no, we have currently no plans to develop this further.
In fact, I didn't have the impression, that Pd "needs" FTM very much, since there are other approaches for handing "complex" data structures.
Well, the basic built-in possibilities may be there but they haven't been developed into a convenient higher-level system. The VASP modular system that i have been developing for a while is similar to FTM but i don't have the time to maintain it any more and i would rather port the higher-level portions to FTM. I think that Pd needs FTM as much as Max needs it and i would appreciate patcher-level cross-platform compatibility a lot.
For what concerns the Gabor and MnM libraries, that have certainly some interesting functionalities that would be worth having in Pd, I also could imagine alternative ways to integrated them into Pd (as well as into Max/MSP/Jitter) relying on the data structures that are already existing in these environments.
Certainly, but do you plan to open-source them?
For me, only the underlying FTMlib and the ftm.object and ftm.mess objects are really required.
Can you develop more on this point?
It means that at this point i personally don't need mnm or gbr externals. The basic FTM functionality is sufficient - i would probably make a Python binding and use numpy/scipy for higher level stuff.
gr~~~