hi,
if we are talking about appearance attributes or some auxiliary parameters (like slider ranges), then there is no disagreement.
But I have some doubts about setting/changing object's behaviour from within properties dialog.
- If the changes are immediately reflected in an object box text,
then there is nothing radical in it, in fact, there is little difference between such a generic dialog and generic `info' message printing object's usage info to the terminal window (my proposal from some time ago).
- If, on the other hand, the argument values I see in an object box
are different from those that are in effect because of changing them in some dialog window (and those that I will see after reloading of the patch), then it is going to be a mess I am likely to be completely lost in. Having a floating `inspector' window instead of pop-up properties dialogs would help a little, but not much.
- There is a possible change of focus. The purity in Pd promotes
distributed' way of doing things. Simple objects usually require a simple and small set of arguments. I suspect, that the main reason why we need thisargument template dialog', is that we need
to pack (too?) many features into one external.
But experiences vary, the 1-3 are only my doubts, I have no strong and clear opinion on that matter.
Krzysztof
guenter geiger wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Krzysztof Czaja wrote:
hi,
this would make quite a radical change in how patches look, and in the way patches are designed, so I think we ought to take into account a few other concerns apart from plain short-term user friendliness. Quick and easy patching is nice, but maintaining large codebase of complex musical pieces is quite a different story. But well, I am not shure, if it is really a proper thing for me to make such comments before Miller speaks...
I don't understand fully why it should change anything except of just having an additional way to input/change arguments for pd objects ?
...