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