Hallo, Jonathan Wilkes hat gesagt: // Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sat, 12/5/09, Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
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?
Some history:
I was involved in early PDDP discussions (around 2005) as well, so PDDP isn't new to me. I dropped out of PDDP for various reasons after a while. Besides the endless discussion about template layout etc. another reason for my retreat was, that the help system started to require certain externals (pddp_link). I believe, a general purpose help file template should not require objects not available in all major Pd distributions. Help files should be accessible to everyone. I wasn't alone with this view, see: http://puredata.info/dev/pddp/2005-11-22-pddp_meeting.txt for example. Some other PDDP contributors didn't have a problem with that. I can accept that, but obviously I had to stop contributing at that point. Some other early participants also dropped out, some for similar reasons IIRC.
While I'm surely guilty of some anti-Pd-extended puritanism, my retreat from PDDP didn't have anything to do with it. It has a different story.
(I'm sorry for saying "pd-extended docs" in my previous mail, it should have been "PDDP docs".)
Ciao
Frank