I very much agree with your points.
If we lump "user space" and "internal" messaging together in an open manual, then they should be clearly delineated with special placed on emphasizing what things are more or less stable and what things are not. Then the user can decide how they want to proceed.As you say, it's better to document all of it and at the same time make it clear what is public and what is private. And figure out how to deal with the large gray area in between :-)
Christof
Howdy all,
My feeling on this is:
1. Recognize that, despite using "private" or "unstable" internal APIs, people have been using/abusing them for years. (So far, I feel we have been recognizing this by being careful not to break things, more or less.)
2. We should document all internal messaging, at least for the sake of developer documentation. If we lump "user space" and "internal" messaging together in an open manual, then they should be clearly delineated with special placed on emphasizing what things are more or less stable and what things are not. Then the user can decide how they want to proceed. I don't see a problem if people want to play with the internals on their own machine and crash Pd... that's half the fun for such activities anyway (learning).
3. We should get a poll of which internal messages are currently in use and consider which of these could be moved into "user space" and/or replaced by a better API. I believe this thread is already providing a good list...
4. Open a technical discussion on supporting "dynamic patching" officially. It's clearly very useful even if clunky through the current workarounds. Even with [clone] there are still many use cases...
On Nov 28, 2021, at 12:25 AM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:20:49 +0100
From: Jean-Yves Gratius <jyg@gumo.fr>
To: pd-list@lists.iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD] documenting messages to/from Pd and dynamic patching
Message-ID: <f41bab20-e831-3f04-52fb-ba273b1e0daf@gumo.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
On 27/11/2021 17:19, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
ForwardedMessage.emlHi. My 2 cents
Subject:
Re: [PD] documenting messages to/from Pd and dynamic patching
From:
Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com>
Date:
27/11/2021 ? 17:01
To:
Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
Two examples that come to my mind:
1) [iemguts/canvasselect] allows to (de)select objects simply by
index. No need to emulate mouse selection with "mouse" and "mouseup".
2) canvases/objects can be moved around with [iemguts/canvasposition]
resp. [iemguts/canvasobjectposition]
Are there any other use cases for "mouse" and "mouseup"?
Personally, I use mouse and mouseup messages to forward multitouch
events into the patch, received? from my multitouch linux laptop.
If those messages were blocked, all my multitouch ecosystem would be out
of order :-) .
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list