--- On Sat, 12/5/09, Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
From: Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org Subject: Re: [PD] Finding "$0" and dealing with it in messages To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009, 1:09 PM Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Nov 29, 2009, at 3:26 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
I have written a bit about Pd's messages on
puredata.info, feel free to
quote as much as you like. I'm not the right
person to fix pd-extended docs.
I can't even create all objects in that patch and
bug 2026128 is still
open, which indicates, that we believe different
things about data types and
messages. I don't want to get into that discussion
again. :)
The PDDP docs predate pd-extended. The PDDP
could easily be distributed
or used by anyone. That patch is related to
PDDP. But yes, Pd-extended
does include the PDDP docs. What's the point of
writing all this email
about the topic if it doesn't actually end up in
something useful? Few
people read the archives...
I don't understand this anti-Pd-extended
puritanism. Does distributing
docs or code in Pd-extended somehow taint it with
evil? I think the PDDP
docs are mostly really good. Most of that work
was done by Dave Sabine.
Why wouldn't we use it and keep it up to date?
Hey, all I said is that *I* am not the right person to do that.
If that's all you had said, I doubt anyone would have replied with anything other than "ok."
And now I'm curious: why can't you create all the objects in that patch? If some of those objects don't create in pd-ext on win/macos/ linux, at the very least the patch should be changed so that they are removed (or replaced with ascii art).
But if it's that you just prefer using pd-vanilla and don't want to download/install pd-ext, why not just say that?
-Jonathan