On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:39 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Nicolas Montgermont wrote: Yeah, that's the idea of the status field. Perhaps when something
is marked deprecated, it should include the date and last Pd
version of the deprecation.hmm, is an external that works fine with pd-0.33 "deprecated"? just because pd-0.33 might be considered "deprecated"? after all
pd-0.33 is still available. in this case, pd-0.39 might be deprecated as well (even though the
current pd-exteded is based on that). are all externals that work
only with the latest release of pd-extended (but not with 0.40 or
0.41 (once this gets out)) to be deprecated then?i would rather have a more positive field "works with:" (last known
pd-version to work with)how about the other way round? "requires:" (pd>0.30)
what with externals that change with Pd? (v1.0 works with pd-0.37..0.39; v2.0 works with 0.40..)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecated
"deprecated" is a status that the author gives to code to say that
there is a better version available which should be used instead.
It's not a mark of whether something works or not.
.hc
mfg.asdr IOhannes
I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three
meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds,
and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. - Martin
Luther King, Jr.