On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:07 -0700 Miller Puckette mpuckett@imusic1.ucsd.edu wrote:
This is a serious problem -- putting a backwards "pow~" into Pd might be worse than having none at all. But writing a book that uses "pow" backwards would be even worse than having one in Pd!
Agreed. This is a difficult choice.
Since it would be in core how about ^ or **
I need a day to think about this and ideas are very welcome. Remember compactness is an issue in the patch diagrams as they are typeset to tight constraints.
BTW it's very important for to know. If it changes after I publish the book I will hire a bounty hunter to bring me the fingers of whoever made the changes :)
Hmm, the dark side reveals fears unworthy of a Jedi. Perhaps the fear is for the sanity of students, or of those who will email me every day saying "why doesn't this patch work?"
:)
My instinct says that clarity and consistency are paramount and if I need to rewrite those parts so be it. We all still have the choice now, so let's make the decision the right one.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:39:07 -0400 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
btw, are all pow~ objects reversed? right inlet^left inlet? marius.
Andy Farnell wrote:
Did I read that Cyclone is to be incorporated into vanilla Pd?
Having discovered too late that [pow~] is not part of vanilla I am about to remove the constraint of using vanilla Pd for the synthetic sound design book since it is incomplete without basic mathematical operators.
andy
-- Use the source
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list