for whom it interests, I was the one putting that list up - a short
version of my own xls file made through copy-pasting - and I always agreed
that the fixed format was the worse way to nail the "moving target". but I
have no knowledge to do it better, so it had to be done that way, and
apparently many people did used it (even though it was never complete).
if possible, I can help in any way of improving this reference, including
taking it down. the only thing I won't do is more copy-pasting, because it
is really irrelevant. but as I don't have any batching knowledge, the best
I can do is to check for libraries missing meta data (including mine),
etc. Or do portuguese desserts for whoever wants to work
(http://tinyurl.com/blyqgsc).
for the categorization of the pd objects, I would suggest something else:
to expand the list of categories, either with more categories, or with
subcategories. the list from vanilla is very general, even for the vanilla
objects. To have few categories with too many objects in them isn't really
a big help in sorting out the objects. But that would be the discussion of
a new thread.
On Jan 5, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Kelly morph_2016@yahoo.co.uk To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com; Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans@at.or.at Cc: Pd List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [PD] translate the Start Here! pageOK, no need to fight. This is about a version of Pd-extended that has
been a very long time coming, that had many issues to resolve, that went
offline and was unavailable at the start of the workshops I teach. I also can't
get my students to download a version of Pd-extended that isn't finished and won't run on their machine. This is their first experience of
programming. They'll give up straight away!Of course. I'm just giving you a beginner's perspective; it's my own memory of that perspective that drives me to work on tools which are
currently only marginally useful to me personally. The supermajority of
discontent among your students tells me that this perspective hasn't changed much. By far, that is currently the fault of the software-- the documentation
is currently too slim and core pd building blocks (and interface) too crude for the question "how do I find more objects" to be anything like an
ancillary question.A static out-of-date list is better than nothing, but as far as
potential dev energy I'd really rather see that put into core docs like the ones
listed on the bug tracker, which are extremely lacking. That FLOSS list will
hopefully become obsolete, but the help docs won't-- even if they're dropped from Pd-extended they're still publicly available.-Jonathan
While I have agreed and disagreed with various points in this
discussion, I think Jonathan's two paragraphs above sum up my feelings
on this topic too. Jonathan has put together a really great system for
help from the meta data to the search plugin, now we need to put actual
content and meta data in our help patches and it'll all be findable in a
multitude of ways. All this could even be used to generate the static
listing in the FLOSS manuals: just take the object name, then get the
library and description from the [pd META]..hc
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list