--- On Tue, 2/15/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] noob question: trying to repurpose the G08.reverb.pd example To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: morgan@morganpackard.com, glitchpop@gmail.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 9:15 PM On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
It's still a common vocabulary. You're not rewriting
the abstractions (or renaming them) every time.
How do the users know (and ensure) that they're really the same ?
Well if the user is the person I send it to, the question makes no sense. They just run the patch and it works.
Making copies like that, encourage per-project customisation of same-named things, doesn't it ?
Not necessarily. You could have a core set of abstractions, and abstractions that you create specifically for a particular project.
And in your case why not just have the several
different patches all be in the same folder with the abstractions?
In some sense, the examples/ folder of GridFlow can be thought as a big directory of projects sharing common abstractions and externals. So, in a sense, I'm doing that already.
To me, it's a form of packaging based on shared dependencies : things get distributed as a single package because they have a lot of dependencies with each other and/or in common (and there's not enough of a rationale to split the package). In GridFlow's case, it's also a form of packaging based on authorship : lots of things get put together because they share the same author (or by members of a same team, official or not).
But GridFlow contains a lot more than abstractions. If it only contained abstractions, I'd just throw it in the patch's directory. It's the difference between someone using my patch with a few clicks, and emailing me back about why [blah] isn't creating, or why Pd says it can't connect to a nonexistent right inlet of [bloo]...
-Jonathan
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC