I'd probably got for adding arguments to the Vanilla version of [wrap], even though it's quite simple arithmetic to work it up there's no reason not to change that. Particularly if it keeps it's current settings as defaults. 

> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:29:48 +0100
> From: zmoelnig@iem.at
> To: pd-list@iem.at
> Subject: Re: [PD] A present
>
> Quoting "cyrille henry" <ch@chnry.net>:
>
> >
> >
> > zmoelnig@iem.at a écrit :
> > ...
> >> should be fairly simple to write an abstraction that wraps
> >> vanilla's [wrap] into the zexy version.
> >
> >
> > wrap is problematic, because if you use the zexy version, and then
> > use your patch on an other computer without zexy : you will not have
> > any warning and your patch may not work.
>
>
> i know,l but i cannot do anything short of rolling back the time.
>
> >
> > usually, you have an error because of missing object...
> >
>
> i would suggest that the vanilla [wrap] should refuse to create (or at
> least throw a serious warning) when it is invoked with arguments.
>
> or even better: the vanilla wrap would just clone the behaviour of
> zexy's wrap.
> while the code for it is right now GPL, i would consider
> dual-licensing it under BSD in order to get it into vanilla :-)
>
> fgamsdr
> IOhannes
>
>
> fgmar
> IOhannes
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---

Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.