[L2Ork-dev] Mixed feelings about the key object patch

[Ivica Bukvic]

First of all, I would like to commend Zack on submitting the patch and a
merge request. Having put more thought into this I wonder whether reversing
object's behavior may be the right approach. I say this because the
original intent of the key object is perfectly embodied in the purrdata
version which appropriately and consistently filters autorepeat and which
in turn ensures that the object stays true to its name. It also promotes
what I would argue a more common sense approach to using key presses while
allowing the old repeats to be harnessed using the optional argument. I do
understand that this in some ways flips the backwards compatibility on its
head but at the same time also promotes a healthier coding practice from a
beginner perspective. I'm also not too hung up on ensuring that we maintain
backwards compatibility when the design goals of vanilla vs. purrdata are
in my view distinctly different. With all this in mind I wonder whether
making this reversal is the best choice as opposed to leaving everything as
is.

Best,

Ico

-- 
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
Director, Creativity + Innovation
Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology

Virginia Tech
Creative Technologies in Music
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-6139
ico at vt.edu

www.icat.vt.edu
www.performingarts.vt.edu
l2ork.icat.vt.edu
ico.bukvic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://disis.music.vt.edu/pipermail/l2ork-dev/attachments/20200606/1eb6b94f/attachment.html>