On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 03:29 +0200, 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?
I think I kind of addressed this in my reply to Patrick, but I find the current situation with libraries of abstractions and externals a bit unsatisfactory. It would really be better if we separated out the storage layout (svn) and the user presentation bit, so that users could group externals/pathches by tag, or some othe non-hierarchical/non-exclusive grouping.
Jamie