On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Johannes Zmölnig wrote:
this is an interesting definition of "abuse". after a bit of research it seems (sic!) like you are referring to something along the lines of the "verbal abuse" article at wikipedia[1]. all in all i am not entirely sure, who is the abused one. what i believe is true, however, is that we both belong to the group of people who "engage in fierce argument, validating the hostility by mirroring it." [1]
Hi, I heard about a fierce argument, so I thought I'd chime in ;)
I've much improved my skills in validating the hostility.
Here is a very brief sample of it:
On Jun 21, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Johannes Zmölnig wrote:
this is an interesting definition of "abuse". after a bit of
research it seems (sic!) like you are referring to something along
the lines of the "verbal abuse" article at wikipedia[1]. all in
all i am not entirely sure, who is the abused one. what i believe
is true, however, is that we both belong to the group of people
who "engage in fierce argument, validating the hostility by
mirroring it." [1]Hi, I heard about a fierce argument, so I thought I'd chime in ;)
I've much improved my skills in validating the hostility.
I have a small proposition, how about we find other outlets for our
frustration and hostility? Then we can use this list to make Pd work
better. Or am I just naive? :D
.hc
Here is a very brief sample of
it:_______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
All information should be free. - the hacker ethic
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I've much improved my skills in validating the hostility.
I have a small proposition, how about we find other outlets for our frustration and hostility?
Depends. would it be an [outlet], an [outlet~], or an [outlet.$1] ?
Then we can use this list to make Pd work better. Or am I just naive? :D
Hostility comes from the impression of talking past each other. That impression comes from actual discussions on topics related to pd. Hostility doesn't come from out of the blue and it cannot just be swept under the carpet using another outlet.
Ignoring each other also comes from the impression of talking past each other. Compared to hostility, it's more mature, polite, civilised and insidious.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 06:02:10PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Then we can use this list to make Pd work better. Or am I just naive? :D
I don't think you are naive, Hans. I think this is a good aim for the list and is extremely acheivable even with a couple of people remaining incendiary with their invective.
Hostility doesn't come from out of the blue and it cannot just be swept under the carpet using another outlet.
Ignoring each other also comes from the impression of talking past each other. Compared to hostility, it's more mature, polite, civilised and insidious.
Even better than ignoring, or sweeping under the carpet, it is possible to use non-provocatory language and to purposely disarm your own writing by eliminating emotionally charged content, and still communicate your point clearly. It's also possible to consider the offence you might cause to the people you are writing to and change your language to soften the blow of potentially offensive comments. That only takes a small amount of extra energy and consideration from each person, but it greatly improves the efficiency of the list in trasmitting ideas and hence improving the software, which is really what we all want, right? Finally, it's possible (but sometimes hard) to emotionally disarm the writing of others as you read it and not rise to any kind of argumentative bait.
Then again, maybe it's fun for some people to be argumentative, and their motives are something other than making better software and helping others. I myself have definately been guilty of arguing a point on this list just because of ego, and also of including emotionally charged language in my replies in order to make a point. It's hard to subtract that out of the equation sometimes.
My point: ignoring and sweeping under the carpet are not the only, or indeed the best options.
Best,
Chris.
Thanks for being honest about this, Chris. There are too few people in the world who are into this niche to slice it up into factions. I'll stop before I quote Rodney King.
~Kyle
On 7/9/07, Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 06:02:10PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Then we can use this list to make Pd work better. Or am I just naive? :D
I don't think you are naive, Hans. I think this is a good aim for the list and is extremely acheivable even with a couple of people remaining incendiary with their invective.
Hostility doesn't come from out of the blue and it cannot just be swept under the carpet using another outlet.
Ignoring each other also comes from the impression of talking past each other. Compared to hostility, it's more mature, polite, civilised and insidious.
Even better than ignoring, or sweeping under the carpet, it is possible to use non-provocatory language and to purposely disarm your own writing by eliminating emotionally charged content, and still communicate your point clearly. It's also possible to consider the offence you might cause to the people you are writing to and change your language to soften the blow of potentially offensive comments. That only takes a small amount of extra energy and consideration from each person, but it greatly improves the efficiency of the list in trasmitting ideas and hence improving the software, which is really what we all want, right? Finally, it's possible (but sometimes hard) to emotionally disarm the writing of others as you read it and not rise to any kind of argumentative bait.
Then again, maybe it's fun for some people to be argumentative, and their motives are something other than making better software and helping others. I myself have definately been guilty of arguing a point on this list just because of ego, and also of including emotionally charged language in my replies in order to make a point. It's hard to subtract that out of the equation sometimes.
My point: ignoring and sweeping under the carpet are not the only, or indeed the best options.
Best,
Chris.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 06:02:10PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Ignoring each other also comes from the impression of talking past each other. Compared to hostility, it's more mature, polite, civilised and insidious.
Even better than ignoring,
It sounds like I mean that ignoring is better than arguing, but that's not what i mean. (what does "insidious" mean to you?)
it is possible to use non-provocatory language and to purposely disarm your own writing by eliminating emotionally charged content, and still communicate your point clearly.
OTOH the content is then still about controversial ideas and it's still about promoting some people's ideas at the expense of some other people's other ideas. This happens regardless of the amount of spin-doctoring performed to dull it.
Then again, maybe it's fun for some people to be argumentative, and their motives are something other than making better software and helping others.
No matter how fun it can be, I don't think anyone here is mostly arguing for the fun of arguing. E.g. for me, there has to be opportunity for some kind of learning that feeds back into thought processes that are eventually productive. Ok, I also write dumb mails sometimes; but we might not agree on which ones are. Sometimes, valid questions look essentially like trolling; but some mindframe's trollish questions is some other mindframe's theoretical underpinnings.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 04:44:27PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 06:02:10PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Ignoring each other also comes from the impression of talking past each other. Compared to hostility, it's more mature, polite, civilised and insidious.
Even better than ignoring,
It sounds like I mean that ignoring is better than arguing, but that's not what i mean. (what does "insidious" mean to you?)
Pretty much this: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Ainsidious
I thought maybe you were making a joke by tacking it on the end of that sentence.
I agree with the idea that silently ignoring is usually better than hostility, but I don't think that either of those options are better than measured argument.
it is possible to use non-provocatory language and to purposely disarm your own writing by eliminating emotionally charged content, and still communicate your point clearly.
OTOH the content is then still about controversial ideas and it's still about promoting some people's ideas at the expense of some other people's other ideas. This happens regardless of the amount of spin-doctoring performed to dull it.
Yes, I see your point. Let me put it this way; I beleive that it's very often (but not always) possible to promote a contraversial idea that is at the expense of other people's ideas in a way that does not offend, but that that option sometimes isn't even attempted on this list, and ironically this decreases the likelyhood of the contraversial idea being widely accepted.
I am saying that I think we could try harder on this list to not offend people, and that doing so would have the distinct advantage of lubricating the gears of communication and making the software and the lives of all users, better.
Then again, politically correct, non-offensive language could turn this list into the most boring list since the discussion on speciation of the cephalote genus Cryptocerus on the Myrmecology-international list. ;)
There is another advantage to trying to be 'nicer' though, which is that people who are more timid, and who also have great ideas, will be less afraid to speak up about them. Unfortunately the people who speak the loudest and most aggressively aren't always the ones with the best ideas. I think I can sum this concept up with one word: politician.
Sometimes, valid questions look essentially like trolling; but some mindframe's trollish questions is some other mindframe's theoretical underpinnings.
Yep, I definately agree with that. I guess the best way to combat that is to give people the benefit of the doubt and try and use neutral, scientific language as far as possible when discussing topics that might incite verbal violence.
Rgds,
Chris.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 23:06:28 -0400 Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 06:02:10PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Then we can use this list to make Pd work better. Or am I just naive? :D
I don't think you are naive, Hans. I think this is a good aim for the list and is extremely acheivable even with a couple of people remaining incendiary with their invective.
Hostility doesn't come from out of the blue and it cannot just be swept under the carpet using another outlet.
Ignoring each other also comes from the impression of talking past each other. Compared to hostility, it's more mature, polite, civilised and insidious.
Even better than ignoring, or sweeping under the carpet, it is possible to use non-provocatory language and to purposely disarm your own writing by eliminating emotionally charged content, and still communicate your point clearly.
Much that is worth saying *is* emotional so it's hard to temper without eliminating the content and leaving hollow words. For society to shun emotion, especialy anger, is actually a very negative thing. Anger is okay, but we conflate it with violence and hate. Anger leads to hate, but it does not *have* to. Its expression can be a way to make sure it *doesn't*. To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war - (Bismarck (not Churchill)).
I just finished Orwells "Inside the whale" containing the famous "Politics and the English language" - the finest arguments ever made for intellectual honesty imo. He mentions that in softening and disarming the written word too much one can have the opposite effect and antagonise the reader. Often the original emotional meaning stays as a subset of the "watered down" version, because meaning comes from structure not just words. Padded by nicities "diffused" (defused) language can seem snarky because the reader sees right through it.
"In my opinion it is a not unjustifiable assumption that you are incorrect"
isn't just verbose, it's far more acidic than
"I think you're wrong"
How often does the meandering doublespeak of the newspapers get you mad when you read of "collateral damage"? I'd rather read about "kids brains blown out" than some smart assed journo insulting me by trying to be clever with words. Intellectual honesty also requires emotional honesty.
Then again, maybe it's fun for some people to be argumentative, and their motives are something other than making better software and helping others. I myself have definately been guilty of arguing a point on this list just because of ego, and also of including emotionally charged language in my replies in order to make a point. It's hard to subtract that out of the equation sometimes.
I guess it depends on culture and formative experience whether heated debate is enjoyable, but enjoying a good argument isn't necessarily incompatible with desiring a productive outcome. Even one not to your advantage. Maybe it's even possible to be a provocoteur in a positve way if your intentions are honorable. Some face to face business meetings I've been in sound like something from the Sopranos. As a written transcript you'd think a gunfight was about to kick off. Of course in reality it's all hugs and slaps. Face to face, being *able* to call someone a f**king idiot is a measure of love, trust and honesty, at least in English culture, and definitely in NYC. But the wonderful world of "electronic mail"... all the emoticons and softeners can never account for the disconnect between two people exchanging email.
To disarm language at the receiving side try reading using the internal voice of somebody you liked and respected, like a favorite old teacher or uncle. Now try reading the same passage again using Homer Simpsons most sarcastic voice... see what I mean?
On a mailing list we get a false sense of familiarity and have voices for who we think that person is. Often they're far off the mark.
My point: ignoring and sweeping under the carpet are not the only, or indeed the best options.
Agreed, I am guilty too. Some subjects, like software patents, get me so wound up that I dare not get into it on list. If feel if I were to be honest I would have no choice but to sound extremely rude. The danger then is that we self-censor and stifle essential debate.
I think Kyle is right that in a small community we can afford to take it for granted that we are brothers and sisters, and sometimes it's better to regret the things you did say in haste than to regret the words you didn't out of cowardice.
Use the source
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Andy Farnell wrote:
Much that is worth saying *is* emotional so it's hard to temper without eliminating the content and leaving hollow words. For society to shun emotion, especialy anger, is actually a very negative thing. Anger is okay, but we conflate it with violence and hate. Anger leads to hate, but it does not *have* to. Its expression can be a way to make sure it *doesn't*. To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war - (Bismarck (not Churchill)).
Given your nick, I was expecting you to make a joke about jar-jar at this point.
I agree with you.
Padded by nicities "diffused" (defused) language can seem snarky because the reader sees right through it.
This is the basis of a linguistic phenomenon that happens in the context of a wave of political correctness. New vocabulary designed to be less inflammatory picks up meaning from its actual usage in practice which is exactly where the old word was used. The process of learning to use that new word is the same as the learning of a slang word or the learning of any word. The new word effectively picks up most connotations that the old word did. What you're left with, in the end, is a new "sophisticated" dialect that is connoting mostly the same that the old one did, and a bunch of outmoded words that look like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/SnakeSkin.JPG
"In my opinion it is a not unjustifiable assumption that you are incorrect" isn't just verbose, it's far more acidic than "I think you're wrong"
It's way more concise to just say
"you're wrong"
because "you're wrong" is necessarily subjective (wrong according to whom?) and without any further qualification it can be assumed that its speaker is the holder of opinion. However this couldn't possibly work if the listener believes that a given utterance expresses something absolute. That's also disregarding how many people will automatically translate "you're wrong" to "I am rude".
How often does the meandering doublespeak of the newspapers get you mad when you read of "collateral damage"? I'd rather read about "kids brains blown out" than some smart assed journo insulting me by trying to be clever with words. Intellectual honesty also requires emotional honesty.
"collateral damage" has connotations of war and especially of war planning. If that's what the journalist wants to refer to, fine, but else, he's misleading. "Collateral damage" may have started as euphemism but, as much as I can think of euphemisms as either jokes or abominations, I think that "collateral damage" makes a lot more sense than the phrase it replaced, namely, "friendly fire", because as everybody knows, friendly fire isn't. That said, I think that "collateral damage" expresses a different perspective on things than "kids brains blown out", which doesn't hint on why it happened; and I think that neither on its own is quite complete as a picture: I'd rather have both perspectives than just either of them.
I think Kyle is right that in a small community we can afford to take it for granted that we are brothers and sisters, and sometimes it's better to regret the things you did say in haste than to regret the words you didn't out of cowardice.
"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." -- Sydney J. Harris
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments distingués. ;)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 03:19:12PM +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
Much that is worth saying *is* emotional so it's hard to temper without eliminating the content and leaving hollow words. For
[snip]
"In my opinion it is a not unjustifiable assumption that you are incorrect"
isn't just verbose, it's far more acidic than
"I think you're wrong"
How often does the meandering doublespeak of the newspapers get you mad when you read of "collateral damage"? I'd rather read about "kids brains blown out" than some smart assed journo insulting me by trying to be clever with words. Intellectual honesty also requires emotional honesty.
I couldn't agree more; point taken.
To disarm language at the receiving side try reading using the internal voice of somebody you liked and respected, like a favorite old teacher or uncle. Now try reading the same passage again using Homer Simpsons most sarcastic voice... see what I mean?
On a mailing list we get a false sense of familiarity and have voices for who we think that person is. Often they're far off the mark.
I agree that this is true more often than not. There are times when it's hard to read someone's comments as anything other than ascerbic, but I agree that these are the exception rather than the norm. I guess if we spend all our time tiptoeing around eachother we'll never get anything done.
I think it's still worth pointing out that occasionally on this list the flow of information has been hindered by unneccesarily provocative language. It's been rare, but it has happened. You are right though, that's probably just par for the course and not worth getting too worked up about, and maybe even a good thing for 'humanising' the list in some way.
My point: ignoring and sweeping under the carpet are not the only, or indeed the best options.
Agreed, I am guilty too. Some subjects, like software patents, get me so wound up that I dare not get into it on list. If feel if I were to be honest I would have no choice but to sound extremely rude. The danger then is that we self-censor and stifle essential debate.
I think that that is exactly why I advocate an emotion free position; because I find it so hard to remove excessive passion from my own rhetoric. (Please excuse this navel gazing!)
I think Kyle is right that in a small community we can afford to take it for granted that we are brothers and sisters, and sometimes it's better to regret the things you did say in haste than to regret the words you didn't out of cowardice.
Yes, very true. I will attempt to relax and use the sarcastic Homer Simpson voice more often (actually Sideshow Bob is my favorite because he is so unrelentingly evil. Hence forth please feel free to read all of my posts with the voice of Sideshow Bob).
Die Bart, die,
Chris.
Hi all,
Wondering if you could lend a hand. I have a patch with about 9
number boxes i vary over a 15 minute performance. I wish to record
the twiddling of these parameters so i can play back the performance.
I was about to start this using an individual table for each
parameter and tabwrite tab read but wondered if there might be a more
effecient method. I havent really looked at data structures but
wonder if perhaps these may hold the answer? ANy examples anyone
could send me on how to accomplish this super quick would be really
great. Something ready made would be fantastic.
Thanks,
Nicky
Hallo, nicholas ward hat gesagt: // nicholas ward wrote:
Wondering if you could lend a hand. I have a patch with about 9
number boxes i vary over a 15 minute performance. I wish to record
the twiddling of these parameters so i can play back the performance.
I was about to start this using an individual table for each
parameter and tabwrite tab read but wondered if there might be a more
effecient method. I havent really looked at data structures but
wonder if perhaps these may hold the answer? ANy examples anyone
could send me on how to accomplish this super quick would be really
great. Something ready made would be fantastic.
Attached patch records events tagged with delta times (i.e. times between events) into a [textfile]. This is similar to qlist, but it's a bit more flexible. For playback see the [pd playback] subpatch.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 12:43 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Attached patch records events tagged with delta times (i.e. times between events) into a [textfile]. This is similar to qlist, but it's a bit more flexible. For playback see the [pd playback] subpatch.
as i understand your patch, it adds the funcionality of [qlist] to [textfile]. what is it then, that gives more flexibility? am i missing the point?
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 12:43 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Attached patch records events tagged with delta times (i.e. times between events) into a [textfile]. This is similar to qlist, but it's a bit more flexible. For playback see the [pd playback] subpatch.
as i understand your patch, it adds the funcionality of [qlist] to [textfile]. what is it then, that gives more flexibility? am i missing the point?
The main advantage is that you don't need to use a global sender as in qlist. That way you can use it easier in abstractions.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:26 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 12:43 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Attached patch records events tagged with delta times (i.e. times between events) into a [textfile]. This is similar to qlist, but it's a bit more flexible. For playback see the [pd playback] subpatch.
as i understand your patch, it adds the funcionality of [qlist] to [textfile]. what is it then, that gives more flexibility? am i missing the point?
The main advantage is that you don't need to use a global sender as in qlist. That way you can use it easier in abstractions.
got it.
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
hi nicholas
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:59 +0100, nicholas ward wrote:
Hi all, Wondering if you could lend a hand. I have a patch with about 9
number boxes i vary over a 15 minute performance. I wish to record
the twiddling of these parameters so i can play back the performance.
there are a lot of approaches around, i think. you might want to have a look at [qlist], which would be my choice in your case (which is probably based only on my personal taste). [qlist] works very similar to [textfile], but it has some additional specialized functionality for sequencing purposes (or in other words: parameter automation purposes). the advantage of using [qlist], as opposed to the table approach, is that it doesn't use a time grid, but uses kind of a time stamp. the most difficult part about using [qlist] is, that you need to feed it with messages, that can be 'played back' by [qlist] afterwards. a line in [qlist] typically looks like this:
312 param1 65 <timestamp> <receiver> <value>
(<value> doesn't need to be a number, but it could also be a symbol or a list)
the timestamp is simply the delta-time to the previous line (in ms). that means, the value '65' is sent to the [r param1] 315ms after the previous line in your recorded sequence.
in order to record your 9 numberboxes, you need to generate such (as shown above) messages, that are sent to [qlist]. that means, you need to assign a receiver-name (e.g. 'param1') to each of your numberboxes. then you need to measure each time between two events. this can easily be achieved with [timer]. then you need to prepend the output of [timer] to your messages with [list prepend].
the output would look like something like this:
2349 param2 12 94 param1 127 304 param3 34 10 param3 35 12 param3 36
send this over a [list prepend add]-[list trim] to [qlist].
when playing back, the recorded numbers are sent to the correspondent receivers ([r param1], [r param2] etc) with the exact order in time you as you recorded them.
if that doesn't help you already, i can build you an examle patch.
I was about to start this using an individual table for each
parameter and tabwrite tab read but wondered if there might be a more
effecient method. I havent really looked at data structures but
wonder if perhaps these may hold the answer?
i never used ds myself, but how i understand them, their strength is mainly in representing data. so, when you just need to record data, but you don't need to visualize them, ds might be kind of an overkill. please correct me, if i am wrong.
cheers roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:
i never used ds myself, but how i understand them, their strength is mainly in representing data. so, when you just need to record data, but you don't need to visualize them, ds might be kind of an overkill. please correct me, if i am wrong.
For simple parameter recordings textfile and qlist are all you need, especially when you have data that isn't structured, like lists of variable length.
But data structures are immensely useful and flexible even without visualisations as a general storage mechanism for structured data. When you're not drawing them, they even are very fast. (Lack of DS is what's keeping me from trying out DesireData ATM.)
Originally I intended to write a paper about unusual uses of DS (my working title was: "databot - people doing strange things with [struct]") for pd~conv, but I didn't find enough time for it before the deadline, so now I'll have present something less fun in Montreal.
But maybe I will just talk about data structures anyway as a little surprise. ;)
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
Roman, Frank, Thanks for the info. That patch is perfect for my needs thanks Frank, N
Frank Barknecht a écrit :
When you're not drawing them, they even are very fast. (Lack of DS is what's keeping me from trying out DesireData ATM.)
Ciao
Yes, when the window where DS is drawn is closed, it's a lot faster! And the lack of DS in DD is what keeps me from using it too.
Best.
Hallo, Patrice Colet hat gesagt: // Patrice Colet wrote:
Frank Barknecht a écrit :
When you're not drawing them, they even are very fast. (Lack of DS is what's keeping me from trying out DesireData ATM.)
Yes, when the window where DS is drawn is closed, it's a lot faster! And the lack of DS in DD is what keeps me from using it too.
Don't remember me of *that* DS: The hinge of the lid on mine is broken, so indeed I'm not using it a lot these days. ;)
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Patrice Colet hat gesagt: // Patrice Colet wrote:
Frank Barknecht a écrit :
(Lack of DS is what's keeping me from trying out DesireData ATM.)
... and perhaps lack of DS people on the team is what is preventing DesireData from getting DS quicker...
Currently, pointers (gpointers) are in a limbo, because i'm ripping out the old system and replacing it with a system in which pointers have a different reference counter which they'd share with the new symbols and with allocated atom-lists. The latter will use braces {} as delimiters. However, all of that is relatively low priority right now.
After that is done, I could begin to work on DS, but with the current team, DS are not seen as being a priority, because we don't use them when we use pd.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:06 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I have a small proposition, how about we find other outlets for our
frustration and hostility?
who is frustrated?
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
On Jul 9, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:06 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I have a small proposition, how about we find other outlets for our frustration and hostility?
who is frustrated?
I guess me. We seem to be very good at arguing with each other, but
not nearly as good at working together towards a common goal...
.hc
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo!
Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is
publicity. - Bill Moyers
-
Andy Farnell -
Chris McCormick -
Frank Barknecht -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Kyle Klipowicz -
Mathieu Bouchard -
nicholas ward -
Patrice Colet -
Roman Haefeli