the question is a very blasphemic one, and I am not sure, if I should bring this into discussion at all... but how long is miller going to develop pd, and when should vanilla become a group effort rather than a one man show? and who is ever willing to take responsibility for the future direction? right now I don't see a reason why the objects you were mentioning should not be in vanilla, and only miller knows the answer to that. and I probably will be expelled from the pd-community from now on. marius.
Andy Farnell wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:17:09 +0200 Derek Holzer derek@umatic.nl wrote:
no worries, just thinking practically rather than wishfully ;-)
:) always appreciate a practical attitude
Practically, it's looking more and more like I need to drop the wishful thinking that I can write a useful and easy to understand textbook based around vanilla Pd.
Using [expr~ pow($v1,$v2)] instead of [pow~] is exactly the sort of ugly and confusing thing that sabotages learning, don't you agree?
Why we don't make the vanilla object set operationally complete is beyond me. There are less than 10 essential missing objects and less than 20 desirable ones.
Why build a bridge 90% across the river and expect people to jump the last few meters?