I stand corrected, sorry, I was mistaken before. Yes, the undo situation in Pd vanilla/extended is not good.
I didn't realize I'd become Microsoft, I thought I was just writing some software for people to freely use ;-)
.hc
On 02/03/2013 09:58 AM, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
Those are a part of the undo on pd-l2ork, as is changing properties of any other object, such as canvas and array (unlike pd-extended that in many cases fails to even acknowledge that the patch has been altered and needs to be saved, needless to mention add such change to its 1-step undo queue, e.g. try changing canvas properties and undoing it).
It would be nice if not spreading FUD were added to the mailing list netiquette... On Feb 3, 2013 5:07 AM, "Roman Haefeli" reduzent@gmail.com wrote:
On Son, 2013-02-03 at 00:25 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
states. The first part o that is not hard, the second part is. But
since
unlimited undo is working in some parts of pd-l2ork, we at least
have a
working example to draw from.
What do you mean by "in some parts?" Can you give an example of where
it
does not work?
Setting a value in the properties of a slider.
You are kidding, right? If the value changes in the UI, this should not
be
undoable. Otherwise, having that slider connected to a [metro 1] and
random
would starve memory within minutes, needless to mention make undo
completely
useless...
I guess Hans is talking about properties like color, sendname etc. The rationale is that those might be considered to be part of patch editing as opposed to changing slider values which could be considered part of patch usage.
Roman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list