zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Quoting Jamie Bullock jamie@postlude.co.uk:
On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 09:54 -0400, Enrique Erne wrote:
Hi Jamie
It's not much but might be helpful to port other stuff to purepd.
you'll find gt~.pd (>~) lt~.pd (<~) sgn~.pd
That's great actually, and I'd love to contribute back into this. However, if I'm not mistaked aren't there two purepd projects netpd/purepd and Hans's purepd in pd svn? Would it be worth feeding your patches into Hans's, and then any other abstractions I make/find I can also feed into svn?
just out of curiosity: >~.pd, <~.pd, sgn~ and what else in zexy are
already pd-vanilla abstractions (some of them are both abstractions
and externals for performance reasons); is there an advantage in
collecting these things in yet another arbitrary (as opposed to
grouped by functionality) library?
where are any abstractions/externals "grouped by functionality"? do you mean pdmtl?
just to be clear: the files netpd.org/eni/purepd/ are not collected as library, they are just there since i have no other place to put them and it could be useful for purepd reasons.
the svn purepd patches contain some abstractions that confuse me a bit. actually i would like to contribute to purepd. (i.e. why is there moses and clip?)
maybe we should define a purepd styleguide too. the any_argument abstraction bothers me. i belive the patches could work without them and i would prefer to keep it super simple.