[chuck-users] what is the process for suggesting improvements for the manual?

Kassen signal.automatique at gmail.com
Mon Jan 11 11:16:44 EST 2010


[*] Did you know that most unit generators don't describe the effect of
> chucking to their inputs?
Wow, yes. That has been badly under-documented. As I see it now the best
solution may be to just add a "input" field to all UGen descriptions. This
will be "nothing" for most and a clear explanation in the case of filters,
the basic osc's, Gain and a few others.

In most cases it should be clear already, I can't imagine anyone living in
much doubt about what the input of a reverb might do, but let's document it
all anyway because there are cases where the *lack* of a input may be
potentially confusing (StIffKarp, maybe) and those that don't do much
without one (Envelope, for example, at least unless Perry's proposal is
taken). It's a important UGen property and hence it needs to be documented,
I agree. While we are at it we might as well note whether such in and
outputs are mono or stereo.

More generally; until we have a better system I don't see why these things
couldn't or shouldn't be discussed on the list. If something is unclear to
one person it will likely be puzzling to others as well, and it's not like
anyone can tell your to "RTFM" :-).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20100111/23194da2/attachment.htm>

More information about the chuck-users mailing list