Why do we need _any_ name change? Any obvious version jump would do it already, 0.6, no?
So PD would become ... PDX. Oh well. Tacky.
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 15:51:11 +0100 From: Allister Sinclair allistersinclair@gmail.com To: Martin Peach chakekatzil@gmail.com Cc: Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com, Pd-List pd-list@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] Pd 64 bits precision "for real"? Message-ID: CALx3ts3AJaA7zkYf3wFzJPWzbDjchMW53gq_H_YFgpgMpBCijA@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
but they're already at gpt3
Le lun. 23 nov. 2020 à 15:45, Martin Peach chakekatzil@gmail.com a écrit :
or dippidydoo, dpd2
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 7:24 AM Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
I think "pd64" is fine, otherwise the list get's catchy/dumb:
pdpd (haha) pd two-times pd again pd double trouble pd dubs' pd-sharp (less rounding) ...
I would fine "dppd" confusing unless we go ahead and re-brand ala "pd
vanilla" and "double-dipped pd" aka "dppd"...
On Nov 23, 2020, at 12:00 PM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:22:49 +0100 From: IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at To: pd-list@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] Pd 64 bits precision "for real"? Message-ID: 57e459d6-e8d1-516c-da37-af88912aaf21@iem.at Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 11/23/20 12:25 AM, Martin Peach wrote:
It should be named dppd to avoid confusion imho.
or pddp (or is that already taken?)
when csound switched to double precision they renamed things to "csound64" (with "things" being at least the libraries that hold the engine).
so i like pd64 better, as it is obvious that this is still Pd (and not just some nice palindromic acronym).
but anyhow, yes: we probably need a catchy name.
fgmadsr IOhannes