actually, i think millers take on this is still the best idea and since there is also a sc~ external for max, max could be used as a mere canvas :-)
but one still would have to come up with some impressive music ;-)
(whatever that might mean)
how about inventing a composer named "donatién collidus" and reach out to the supercolliders for a collaborative effort?
i´d happily provide assistance with my maxlicense in wrapping it all up.
hans
www.hans-w-koch.net
Am 04.01.2012 um 00:24 schrieb pd-list-request@iem.at:
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:24:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [PD] no pd??
To: Richie Cyngler glitchpop@gmail.com, Mathieu Bouchard
matju@artengine.ca
Cc: servando barreiro servandisco@yahoo.es, Miller Puckette
msp@ucsd.edu, "pd-list@iem.at" pd-list@iem.at
Message-ID:
1325633046.97311.YahooMailNeo@web39404.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Exactly.? You'd essentially write the same patch twice-- once completely in Max, and if it gets accepted then with Pd and wrap it in a [pd~] object.
OR:
In fact you could just work with the subset of objects that are exactly the same between the two environments:
[cos~]
[phasor~]
[biquad~]
and so on.
Then just make sure you don't have whitespace inside [expr] or [expr~], and you could really just write the whole thing once in Pd, submit it as a Max patch, and perform it as a Pd patch.
That would be the most effective way to show the idiocy of the way the call was written.
-Jonathan