On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:52 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Andy Farnell hat gesagt: // Andy Farnell wrote:
I therefore define "missing" as when the best answer on the table is "use [expr~]" or "use this equivalence made of more than 2 or 3 objects"
What about vanilla-abstractions? Pd-vanilla currently only ships with a handful of abstractions (rev123~.pd, hilbert~.pd) intended to be put in the path. Some of the missing math objects could be included as simple default abstractions, like [sin~]. Zexy went this route for [abs~].
Another point to take into account could be how many times an operation has been coded as an external before. [abs~] currently was coded four times to my knowledge (markex, zexy, creb, cyclone). This shows, that there is a demand for this operation, otherwise people wouldn't have bothered to code it. So yes, [abs~] would be good to have in Pd.
I'm reluctant to mention [counter] here, which also was coded many times, unfortunatly in incompatible ways. I'm reluctant, because [counter] is too basic to be included. Call me elitist, but I believe counting is such a basic and important operation, Pd users should't learn how to count in Pd itself.
Finally a motivation to include more binary objects may be efficiency. Some [list]-abs are much slower than necessary ([list-idx], [list-drip]) and these operations would be good to have in Pd as well.
Then we should also add streaming... wait this is starting to sound a
bit like Pd-extended ;)
.hc
'You people have such restrictive dress for women,’ she said,
hobbling away in three inch heels and panty hose to finish out
another pink-collar temp pool day. - “Hijab Scene #2", by Mohja Kahf