that's a pity. although you're not the person to ask, are there plans to
make pdl2ork available on windows?
Hi Joao, Those features won't be available in Pd-extended-- the GUI part depends
on a library called tkpath >which Pd-extended doesn't use.The tentative plan is to port Pd-l2ork's GUI to Qt, leveraging
QGraphicsview or QML. The features I've >added should be common to any
modern 2d API that does "managed" graphics. That includes Qt, >SVG,
probably GTK as well, but unfortunately not Tk.-Jonathan
On Friday, November 28, 2014 5:28 PM, João Pais
jmmmpais@googlemail.com wrote:Hello,
I haven't been using Pd regularly for a while now. But as I remember,
the biggest disadvantage of data >structures isn't really that they're
"buggy" (i.e. have some issues that usually don't happen in other pdobjects, as Jonathan listed), but that there are very few possible
operations. Any patching requires lots >of work to do things that on
other parts of Pd happen very easily. Looking at the ftm library, could
be a >way of a goal of what could be done using data structues (not even
to mention the audio part).Also, because of the gui issues, data structures can't really be relied
upon for non-slow (i.e. medium and >fast) graphics. It just takes lots
of cpu (at least it does on my windows machines).There is also the steep learning curve, but I've seen gradually more
people working with them, so that >generates a positive loop. I don't
know if my tutorial helped much (based on the ones of F Barknecht >and G
Karman), but every step counts. One can also have a look at my abstractions in extra/jmmmp, several of
them are made with data >structures - including [matrixctrl], quite
useful as a gui for [iemmatrix/mtx_mul~]. (btw, I was just trying to upload my tutorial to puredata.info, but the
website gave an error. I'll keep >trying)Jonathan, when will your new features be available in Pd Extended? I
could try to update my tutorial with >them. I'm not using linux anymore,
so I won't be working with pdl2ork.Best,
Joao
On 11/23/2014 11:26 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
don't even remember cause I stopped messing with it because of them,
but I did discuss >>>about them sometime ago here on the list, with
joão pais, the bottom line is that they were >>>indeed buggy like that
and that you had to cope with it.Well, there are a few areas I can think of:
- changing contents of [struct] when you have scalars in a canvas. Pd
goes through and conforms >>the scalars to the new [struct] definition,
but the old definition sticks around, too. This seems to causeproblems in some cases, and possibly crashes when you have array
fields inside the [struct]-- >>especially if you make changes to the
[struct] for that array. 2) scalars inside a gop. These are prone to all kinds of weirdness,
though it's unclear what constitutes >>a bug here:
- there's a red gop rectangle for putting objects which you want to
show up on the parent, but scalars >>get scaled and displaced as a
function of subpatch's window dimensions and x/y ranges/sizes. Thismakes it difficult to tell where the scalar will appear inside the
gop, as well as blasting the scalar off into >>the nether regions of
the subpatch if you decide to turn on gop.
- iemguis outside of the gop rectangle won't show up, but scalars will
- while the gop rectangle does not affect the appearance of a scalar,
it _does_ affect the scalar's >>widgetbehavior. Thus you can click a
scalar only if it's within the gop boundaries. You can drag a >>scalar
outside of the boundaries, but once you release the button you can't
drag it back. (Same with a >>"Put" menu array.)
- text appearance is limited by tk canvas implementation. So the x/y
units setting of a gop canvas will >>affect polygon appearance, but the
text itself won't rescale at all.
- canvas "clear" method clears out the gop settings (at least I think
it does). The "coords" and >>"donecanvasdialog" methods take an
enormous list of positional arguments that are impossible to >>remember
- x/y margins apparently have no effect on scalars, although Pd lets
you set them
It's difficult to figure out how to make that scalar behavior in gops
more sensible. It's tricky because >>gop currently acts like a
"viewport" somewhat in the svg or opengl sense, yet it doesn't clip or
even >>respect the "size" attributes if the subpatch is open. "Put"
menu array sizing and [table] widgetbehavior >>are affected by this, so
if scalar gop appearance were simplified then garrays would have to bedecoupled from that behavior.
-Jonathan
cheers
2014-11-17 2:50 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com:
>> On 11/16/2014 10:55 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
my two cents is that the data structures are still a bit buggy to
work on. Just >>>>>hoped they'd be more stable, other than that,
can't relate to the commotion, >>>>>cheersWhat kinds of bugs are you running into?
-Jonathan
2014-11-13 13:45 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list
<pd->>>>>list@lists.iem.at>:It's certainly possible. There's a Pd-l2ork script for creating a
"vanilla" tarball >>>>>>with the l2ork changes in it, so I guess
you could try dropping the src and >>>>>>extra from that into
libpd's pure-data directory and see what happens.But I don't know much about libpd.
>>>>>> -Jonathan
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:38 AM, i go bananas
hard.off@gmail.com >>>>>>wrote:in relation to Pd-l2ork, >>>>>> guys, what's the status of having a 'libpd' for l2ork??? is
>>>>>> that possible?>>>>>> sorry for going off topic...but it is something i have wanted
>>>>>> to ask for ages.On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:33 PM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
>>>>>>wrote: > IOhannes,
> that's kinda what i thought.... > > but really, come on...pd's interface is it's weakest point. When
> miller >>>>>>>started working on the data structures, libpd and
> all that didn't even exist. >>>>>>>But now, we can just farm out
> that sort of stuff to other programs.
> Compared to the amount of effort it takes to learn them, and how
> effective >>>>>>>they actually are, data structures are just too
> un-economical. > in nearly 15 years of their existence, i think i can still count
> on both hands >>>>>>>how many good implementations of them i have
> seen. > > look, i LOVE pd and couldn't live without it....but it just seems
> like any >>>>>>>minute spent on data structures is a minute that
> could be way better spent >>>>>>>on other stuff. > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:54 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig
> >>>>>>>zmoelnig@iem.at wrote: >> On 11/12/2014 03:33 PM, i go bananas wrote: >>> >>> couldn't that work be put to better use? >>> >> >> depends on your definition of "better". >> >> if i understand correctly, "data structures" have been _the_
>> motivation >> for writing Pd (as opposed to continue with max), so i think we
>> owe them >>>>>>>>:-) >> >> gfmrdsa >> IOhannes