Hi Krzysztof,
I intend someday to include compatibility libraries in the Pd release; this would mean both Pd objects like gate and Max/MSP objects like spigot. Whatever compatibility object people put where I can get them, as long as they don't mind, I'll be happy to incorporate.
About name clashes, I think the only solution will be a command line switch to Pd to put it in Max mode (like "-traditional" flag for cc.)
Some objects will be hard to deal with.. switch~, for example, and the FFT objects...
cheers Miller
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:09:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Czaja wrote:
hi all,
(hopefully I will get any response to) what do you think about how best to simplify recycling task -- porting max/msp projects to Pd, and the other way around -- and not bringing too much suffering to anybody. The options are:
a. the recycling project harms Pd community, and should be banned.
b. It harms max/msp community, and/or is illegal.
c. It is to be regarded as having low priority. In particular, if there is a name clash between an already existing Pd external class and max or msp class, and the two are functionally different, the Pd external wins.
d. It is to be regarded as middle priority, and conflicting and not max/msp-compatible Pd externals should be renamed.
e. It is to be regarded as high priority, which would probably mean adjusting some of the Pd internal classes.
But *please*, if you just want to add your vote, send it to my private address only. Use pd-list for discussion.
Krzysztof
Btw, from now on, I will try to remember to always put the term
recycling' in a subject line of any mail concerning Pd/max compatibility in general, and the termcyclone', if it is about the library. So you would rather use both in your mail filters!Also btw, my vote is somewhere in between c and d -- but closer to d, because there are already various clashes among Pd externals themselves: gate, prepend, counter...