Dear List, Simon
Thanks Simon for your kind reply and explanations
So although there might be space for calling that behavior an additional but questionable 'feature', i consider it an inconsistency in user interface design. Preferences are preferences, whether they are in a .pdrc file or in a preferences file.
IMHO -noprefs should disable all preferences-mechanisms.
Regards,
Peter
simon wise wrote:
On 1 Dec 2007, at 10:11 PM, Peter Plessas wrote:
i thought that the -noprefs flag also disables loading of the .pdrc file on linux, but it does not. Is this intentional on 0.40-2?
Since the preference dialogues were added they have always been treated as quite separate from the older .pdrc system - IMHO this split remains useful as it is possible to either ignore the older system (just delete any .pdrc files) or use it instead (delete the settings files instead) or use both in parallel to help manage your settings in different ways for different circumstances (eg using the .pdrc to set up machine specific things like which soundcard to use while selecting libraries and startup patches with the preferences). The newer preference system is getting some very useful features - especially the embedded option! - and when the dialogue box eventually gets more than 10 slots I will use the .pdrc system less often.
simon
Hi all,
I think "-noprefs" should stop .pdrc as well, since it's in the spirit of being able to find out whether a problem is coming from the configuration or from Pd itself. If it's reasonably easy to do I'll change that.
That said, I think ".pdrc" should be regarded as deprecated, unless there's something you can do with it that can't be done in .pdsettings instead.
cheers Miller
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:31:31AM +0100, Peter Plessas wrote:
Dear List, Simon
Thanks Simon for your kind reply and explanations
So although there might be space for calling that behavior an additional but questionable 'feature', i consider it an inconsistency in user interface design. Preferences are preferences, whether they are in a .pdrc file or in a preferences file.
IMHO -noprefs should disable all preferences-mechanisms.
Regards,
Peter
simon wise wrote:
On 1 Dec 2007, at 10:11 PM, Peter Plessas wrote:
i thought that the -noprefs flag also disables loading of the .pdrc file on linux, but it does not. Is this intentional on 0.40-2?
Since the preference dialogues were added they have always been treated as quite separate from the older .pdrc system - IMHO this split remains useful as it is possible to either ignore the older system (just delete any .pdrc files) or use it instead (delete the settings files instead) or use both in parallel to help manage your settings in different ways for different circumstances (eg using the .pdrc to set up machine specific things like which soundcard to use while selecting libraries and startup patches with the preferences). The newer preference system is getting some very useful features - especially the embedded option! - and when the dialogue box eventually gets more than 10 slots I will use the .pdrc system less often.
simon
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi,
I think "-noprefs" should stop .pdrc as well, since it's in the spirit
that is great news! Btw, is there a document on the available options in .pdsettings?
For example: Does "defeatrt: 0" imply -rt? Otherwise, how does one set -rt? Which Audio-API is which number?
Let me take the opportunity to address two other issues, both already discussed a lot on the list but still worthy to address:
Hiding hidden folders in Tcl's file dialog. (1) The position of objects being pasted into a patcher. (2)
After almost five years of working with pd a lot, these two things are the ones, that bother users (like me) the most. They might be hard to solve, but are still necessary to solve. One can live without much eye-candy and other 'nice-to-have' features very well. But those two things are an obstacle to everyday work in pd, because (1) is slowing the work down, and (2) is causing confusion.
thanks & regards from
Peter
- Miller Puckette mpuckett@imusic1.ucsd.edu [2007-12-05 23:46]:
Hi all,
I think "-noprefs" should stop .pdrc as well, since it's in the spirit of being able to find out whether a problem is coming from the configuration or from Pd itself. If it's reasonably easy to do I'll change that.
That said, I think ".pdrc" should be regarded as deprecated, unless there's something you can do with it that can't be done in .pdsettings instead.
cheers Miller
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:31:31AM +0100, Peter Plessas wrote:
Dear List, Simon
Thanks Simon for your kind reply and explanations
So although there might be space for calling that behavior an additional but questionable 'feature', i consider it an inconsistency in user interface design. Preferences are preferences, whether they are in a .pdrc file or in a preferences file.
IMHO -noprefs should disable all preferences-mechanisms.
Regards,
Peter
simon wise wrote:
On 1 Dec 2007, at 10:11 PM, Peter Plessas wrote:
i thought that the -noprefs flag also disables loading of the .pdrc file on linux, but it does not. Is this intentional on 0.40-2?
Since the preference dialogues were added they have always been treated as quite separate from the older .pdrc system - IMHO this split remains useful as it is possible to either ignore the older system (just delete any .pdrc files) or use it instead (delete the settings files instead) or use both in parallel to help manage your settings in different ways for different circumstances (eg using the .pdrc to set up machine specific things like which soundcard to use while selecting libraries and startup patches with the preferences). The newer preference system is getting some very useful features - especially the embedded option! - and when the dialogue box eventually gets more than 10 slots I will use the .pdrc system less often.
simon
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Miller Puckette -
Peter Plessas