i agree - kinda antithetical to the ethos of Pure Data, really. i think you could use Heavy to turn a patch into rather voluminous C++ code. i remember from the devs that they said the code output wasn't supposed to be edited or analyzed by humans, but rather existed to be wrapped to work in a number of environments as sort of a black box or code blob. but obfuscating a PD patch itself seems stupid. i'm sure you could name subpatches and abstractions randomly and maybe even rearrange the physical placement using the method Jonathan refers to, though i believe that could affect signal flow and execution order, wouldn't it?
best, scott
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
but why?
2016-05-12 3:03 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list < pd-list@lists.iem.at>:
What about simply changing all object coords other than inlet/outlet to (0, 0)?
-Jonathan
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:00 AM, Mario Mey mariomey@gmail.com wrote:
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list