Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Cheers
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 15:49 +0000, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Inlets and outlets don't have any explicit numbering. Internally - in the .pd file - they are numbered starting from 0, but this hasn't any impact on how you specify them in the help-file.
The dollarargs ($1, $2, $3) do not relate to inlets at all, but to the arguments given to an abstraction.
Am I addressing your question?
Roman
Here's my $0-cents worth. This is an eternal struggle in the world'o'comp sci. We need to wrap our heads around the fact that 0 is the 1st number in any kind of data container, whether it be value or ordinal position. Yet, as humans we prefer 1 to be that first number, reserving 0 as the special case value. So, you could make the case either way arguing for consistency, intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
On the practical side, renaming inlets would mean going through every last help file and ensuring it has been updated accordingly, otherwise you would be just adding to more confusion as newcomers learn that some help files refer to the first inlet as 0 and others as 1...
On 3/17/2016 11:49 AM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Cheers
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
?I think this is what Jaron Lanier may call "Lock-in"
Patrick Pagano B.S, M.F.A Audio and Projection Design Faculty Digital Worlds Institute University of Florida, USA (352)294-2020 ________________________________ From: Pd-list pd-list-bounces@mail.iem.at on behalf of Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:26 PM To: pd-list@mail.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] Help Patches Layout
Here's my $0-cents worth. This is an eternal struggle in the world'o'comp sci. We need to wrap our heads around the fact that 0 is the 1st number in any kind of data container, whether it be value or ordinal position. Yet, as humans we prefer 1 to be that first number, reserving 0 as the special case value. So, you could make the case either way arguing for consistency, intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
On the practical side, renaming inlets would mean going through every last help file and ensuring it has been updated accordingly, otherwise you would be just adding to more confusion as newcomers learn that some help files refer to the first inlet as 0 and others as 1...
On 3/17/2016 11:49 AM, Esteban Viveros wrote: Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Cheers
Pd-list@lists.iem.atmailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Thanks Roman for explanations.. good trim the edges of naming things in order to eliminate future confusion.
Ivica, I'm thinking in order to provide a relatively see and understand for help patch user. Is really necessary expose a new user to this problematics?
I'm thinking which not every pd user must be a programmer (at least initially), and probably be an artist... (perhaps), thinking this I understand the principal goal of the user is to make thinks work, and to use the send a message to this object he needs do use $1 $2 $3, if he use $0 pd will do other thing.. So name outlets in Help from 0 require one more step for who are learning many more steps... (please correct me if I'm wrong with regard to the behavior pd)
Finally, open and edit patch by patch I'm already doing.. Rename inlets and outlets I can make like meditation! :P
I'm question for these because I know pdL2ork have other libraries and have change something like this have consequences. But anyway, if needed I can modify some more patches. :) Only it will have some time.
Cheers
Em qui, 17 de mar de 2016 às 13:26, Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu escreveu:
Here's my $0-cents worth. This is an eternal struggle in the world'o'comp sci. We need to wrap our heads around the fact that 0 is the 1st number in any kind of data container, whether it be value or ordinal position. Yet, as humans we prefer 1 to be that first number, reserving 0 as the special case value. So, you could make the case either way arguing for consistency, intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
On the practical side, renaming inlets would mean going through every last help file and ensuring it has been updated accordingly, otherwise you would be just adding to more confusion as newcomers learn that some help files refer to the first inlet as 0 and others as 1...
On 3/17/2016 11:49 AM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Cheers
_______________________________________________Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
As an alternative idea, perhaps one of the early pd tutorials (e.g. introduction) could simply elaborate how the inlets are numbered which could be a considerably easier solution.
If you are determined to update all the docs to reflect this change, don't forget the PD_META which currently requires the use of 0 as the first inlet. Updating tooltips will also require changes accommodate for this alteration.
Best,
Ico
On 3/17/2016 1:13 PM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Thanks Roman for explanations.. good trim the edges of naming things in order to eliminate future confusion.
Ivica, I'm thinking in order to provide a relatively see and understand for help patch user. Is really necessary expose a new user to this problematics?
I'm thinking which not every pd user must be a programmer (at least initially), and probably be an artist... (perhaps), thinking this I understand the principal goal of the user is to make thinks work, and to use the send a message to this object he needs do use $1 $2 $3, if he use $0 pd will do other thing.. So name outlets in Help from 0 require one more step for who are learning many more steps... (please correct me if I'm wrong with regard to the behavior pd)
Finally, open and edit patch by patch I'm already doing.. Rename inlets and outlets I can make like meditation! :P
I'm question for these because I know pdL2ork have other libraries and have change something like this have consequences. But anyway, if needed I can modify some more patches. :) Only it will have some time.
Cheers
Em qui, 17 de mar de 2016 às 13:26, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico@vt.edu mailto:ico@vt.edu> escreveu:
Here's my $0-cents worth. This is an eternal struggle in the world'o'comp sci. We need to wrap our heads around the fact that 0 is the 1st number in any kind of data container, whether it be value or ordinal position. Yet, as humans we prefer 1 to be that first number, reserving 0 as the special case value. So, you could make the case either way arguing for consistency, intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc. On the practical side, renaming inlets would mean going through every last help file and ensuring it has been updated accordingly, otherwise you would be just adding to more confusion as newcomers learn that some help files refer to the first inlet as 0 and others as 1... On 3/17/2016 11:49 AM, Esteban Viveros wrote:Hi, I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some Help patches. The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1? Cheers _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
If you are determined to update all the docs to reflect this change, don't forget the PD_META which currently requires the use of 0 as the first inlet. Updating tooltips will also require changes accommodate for this alteration.
I did not attack me so... Rename in there have some implication? If no, I will start to rename...
Best,
Ico
On 3/17/2016 1:13 PM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Thanks Roman for explanations.. good trim the edges of naming things in order to eliminate future confusion.
Ivica, I'm thinking in order to provide a relatively see and understand for help patch user. Is really necessary expose a new user to this problematics?
I'm thinking which not every pd user must be a programmer (at least initially), and probably be an artist... (perhaps), thinking this I understand the principal goal of the user is to make thinks work, and to use the send a message to this object he needs do use $1 $2 $3, if he use $0 pd will do other thing.. So name outlets in Help from 0 require one more step for who are learning many more steps... (please correct me if I'm wrong with regard to the behavior pd)
Finally, open and edit patch by patch I'm already doing.. Rename inlets and outlets I can make like meditation! :P
I'm question for these because I know pdL2ork have other libraries and have change something like this have consequences. But anyway, if needed I can modify some more patches. :) Only it will have some time.
Cheers
Em qui, 17 de mar de 2016 às 13:26, Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu escreveu:
Here's my $0-cents worth. This is an eternal struggle in the world'o'comp sci. We need to wrap our heads around the fact that 0 is the 1st number in any kind of data container, whether it be value or ordinal position. Yet, as humans we prefer 1 to be that first number, reserving 0 as the special case value. So, you could make the case either way arguing for consistency, intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
On the practical side, renaming inlets would mean going through every last help file and ensuring it has been updated accordingly, otherwise you would be just adding to more confusion as newcomers learn that some help files refer to the first inlet as 0 and others as 1...
On 3/17/2016 11:49 AM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Cheers
_______________________________________________Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Mar 17, 2016 2:03 PM, "Esteban Viveros" emviveros@gmail.com wrote:
If you are determined to update all the docs to reflect this change,
don't forget the PD_META which currently requires the use of 0 as the first inlet. Updating tooltips will also require changes accommodate for this alteration.
I did not attack me so... Rename in there have some implication? If no, I
will start to rename...
This is where tooltips pull their documentation information when you hover with your mouse over inlets, outlets, or the object itself. These changes will require changes in C, GUI, and may also affect compatibility between vanilla and pd-l2ork. My advice would be at this point not to worry about it and focus on other aspects until we think this through a little bit.
Best,
Ico
On 3/17/2016 1:13 PM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Thanks Roman for explanations.. good trim the edges of naming things in
order to eliminate future confusion.
Ivica, I'm thinking in order to provide a relatively see and understand
for help patch user. Is really necessary expose a new user to this problematics?
I'm thinking which not every pd user must be a programmer (at least
initially), and probably be an artist... (perhaps), thinking this I understand the principal goal of the user is to make thinks work, and to use the send a message to this object he needs do use $1 $2 $3, if he use $0 pd will do other thing.. So name outlets in Help from 0 require one more step for who are learning many more steps... (please correct me if I'm wrong with regard to the behavior pd)
Finally, open and edit patch by patch I'm already doing.. Rename inlets
and outlets I can make like meditation! :P
I'm question for these because I know pdL2ork have other libraries and
have change something like this have consequences. But anyway, if needed I can modify some more patches. :) Only it will have some time.
Cheers
Em qui, 17 de mar de 2016 às 13:26, Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu
escreveu:
Here's my $0-cents worth. This is an eternal struggle in the
world'o'comp sci. We need to wrap our heads around the fact that 0 is the 1st number in any kind of data container, whether it be value or ordinal position. Yet, as humans we prefer 1 to be that first number, reserving 0 as the special case value. So, you could make the case either way arguing for consistency, intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
On the practical side, renaming inlets would mean going through every
last help file and ensuring it has been updated accordingly, otherwise you would be just adding to more confusion as newcomers learn that some help files refer to the first inlet as 0 and others as 1...
On 3/17/2016 11:49 AM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some
Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user
have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Cheers
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I'm really really convinced maintaining actual numeration of inlets/outlets in help patches in cyclone ever more.... Max use the same numeration. And it really designed to be different of messaging numeration.
Thanks of everyone for patience :)
Em qui, 17 de mar de 2016 às 19:05, Ivica Bukvic ico@vt.edu escreveu:
On Mar 17, 2016 2:03 PM, "Esteban Viveros" emviveros@gmail.com wrote:
If you are determined to update all the docs to reflect this change,
don't forget the PD_META which currently requires the use of 0 as the first inlet. Updating tooltips will also require changes accommodate for this alteration.
I did not attack me so... Rename in there have some implication? If no,
I will start to rename...
This is where tooltips pull their documentation information when you hover with your mouse over inlets, outlets, or the object itself. These changes will require changes in C, GUI, and may also affect compatibility between vanilla and pd-l2ork. My advice would be at this point not to worry about it and focus on other aspects until we think this through a little bit.
Best,
Ico
On 3/17/2016 1:13 PM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Thanks Roman for explanations.. good trim the edges of naming things
in order to eliminate future confusion.
Ivica, I'm thinking in order to provide a relatively see and
understand for help patch user. Is really necessary expose a new user to this problematics?
I'm thinking which not every pd user must be a programmer (at least
initially), and probably be an artist... (perhaps), thinking this I understand the principal goal of the user is to make thinks work, and to use the send a message to this object he needs do use $1 $2 $3, if he use $0 pd will do other thing.. So name outlets in Help from 0 require one more step for who are learning many more steps... (please correct me if I'm wrong with regard to the behavior pd)
Finally, open and edit patch by patch I'm already doing.. Rename
inlets and outlets I can make like meditation! :P
I'm question for these because I know pdL2ork have other libraries and
have change something like this have consequences. But anyway, if needed I can modify some more patches. :) Only it will have some time.
Cheers
Em qui, 17 de mar de 2016 às 13:26, Ivica Ico Bukvic ico@vt.edu
escreveu:
Here's my $0-cents worth. This is an eternal struggle in the
world'o'comp sci. We need to wrap our heads around the fact that 0 is the 1st number in any kind of data container, whether it be value or ordinal position. Yet, as humans we prefer 1 to be that first number, reserving 0 as the special case value. So, you could make the case either way arguing for consistency, intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
On the practical side, renaming inlets would mean going through every
last help file and ensuring it has been updated accordingly, otherwise you would be just adding to more confusion as newcomers learn that some help files refer to the first inlet as 0 and others as 1...
On 3/17/2016 11:49 AM, Esteban Viveros wrote:
Hi,
I'm with Porres in Cyclone maintenance working on revision of some
Help patches.
The question is: Why count inlets and outlets from zero if Pd user
have to call inlets and outlets from $1 $2 $3... ? For help patch user don't be more convenient enumerate inlets and outlets starting at number 1?
Cheers
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:26:07PM -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
I always assumed Pd to be rather 1-centric and not 0-centric: There is no $0 for message boxes, and where abstraction arguments are concerned, $0 (patch instance) in use is really something entirely different from $1...$n (arguments to an instance given by user).
Also many (most?) command line arguments like -audiodev refer to the first item in a list with 1 instead of 0, leading to an interesting confustion when they have meet with the 0-centric outside world like ALSA's device numbering.
So Pd in my view is more similar to Lua, where numbering generally starts at 1 (which actually works well, once you get used to it).
But in the end, it's
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
I did not attack me so... Rename in there have some implication? If no, I will start to rename...
Please don't rename them. Inlets and outlets are numbered starting from zero, both in Pd's file format and in dynamic patching:
[connect 0 0 1 0(|[send this] [namecanvas this] This makes a connection from the left-most outlet of the first object created to the left-most inlet of the second object created. Both the object index and xlet index start from zero. Garrays are zero-indexed as well. So changing the help patches won't make Pd any more consistent in this regard. In fact it would make it less consistent because you'd have two versions of the help patches in the wild. (And messages to this list show that people are still downloading and using Pd-extended long after it's been abandoned.) Short story-- I'm all for improving documentation, all for consistency, and all for making anything more accessible and friendly to users. But these proposed changes don't achieve those goals. -Jonathan
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:18 PM, Frank Barknecht <fbar@footils.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:26:07PM -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the first arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
I always assumed Pd to be rather 1-centric and not 0-centric: There is no $0 for message boxes, and where abstraction arguments are concerned, $0 (patch instance) in use is really something entirely different from $1...$n (arguments to an instance given by user).
Also many (most?) command line arguments like -audiodev refer to the first item in a list with 1 instead of 0, leading to an interesting confustion when they have meet with the 0-centric outside world like ALSA's device numbering.
So Pd in my view is more similar to Lua, where numbering generally starts at 1 (which actually works well, once you get used to it).
But in the end, it's
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Great. Thanks Jonathan!
Em qui, 17 de mar de 2016 às 18:30, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list < pd-list@lists.iem.at> escreveu:
I did not attack me so... Rename in there have some implication? If no,
I will start to rename...
Please don't rename them. Inlets and outlets are numbered starting from zero, both in Pd's file format and in dynamic patching:
[connect 0 0 1 0( | [send this]
[namecanvas this]
This makes a connection from the left-most outlet of the first object created to the left-most inlet of the second object created. Both the object index and xlet index start from zero.
Garrays are zero-indexed as well.
So changing the help patches won't make Pd any more consistent in this regard. In fact it would make it less consistent because you'd have two versions of the help patches in the wild. (And messages to this list show that people are still downloading and using Pd-extended long after it's been abandoned.)
Short story-- I'm all for improving documentation, all for consistency, and all for making anything more accessible and friendly to users. But these proposed changes don't achieve those goals.
-Jonathan
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:18 PM, Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:26:07PM -0400, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
intuitiveness, aliens, whatever. Another consideration within the pd* ecosystem is that it is 0-centric, meaning things tend to start with $0 (patch instance) before they get to $1. Then again, $1 refers to the
first
arg, so you could argue it may be inconsistent... etc. etc. etc.
I always assumed Pd to be rather 1-centric and not 0-centric: There is no $0 for message boxes, and where abstraction arguments are concerned, $0 (patch instance) in use is really something entirely different from $1...$n (arguments to an instance given by user).
Also many (most?) command line arguments like -audiodev refer to the first item in a list with 1 instead of 0, leading to an interesting confustion when they have meet with the 0-centric outside world like ALSA's device numbering.
So Pd in my view is more similar to Lua, where numbering generally starts at 1 (which actually works well, once you get used to it).
But in the end, it's
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Esteban Viveros -
Frank Barknecht -
Ivica Bukvic -
Ivica Ico Bukvic
-
Jonathan Wilkes -
Pagano, Patrick -
Roman Haefeli