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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

Since you've had it in pd-l2ork 1.0 for a long time, *and* since that
is better default behavior IMO, I could go either way here.

Albert-- any thoughts?

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:57 PM Ivica Bukvic <ico at vt.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> L2Ork-dev mailing list
> L2Ork-dev at disis.music.vt.edu
> https://disis.music.vt.edu/listinfo/l2ork-dev