Aha - that sounds like it has potential. So let's say for example that
we just wanted to store tags in a simple list of symbols, would
something like this do it?
SynthDef(\blah,
{ Out.ar(0, whatever) },
metadata: (tags: [\additive, \drum, \funky, \evil])
).store;
Dan
2009/3/2, James Harkins <jamshark70@xxxxxxxxx>:
The metadata dictionary might be interesting for tagging. We would
have to come up with a standard format - just pointing out, there's
already a structure in place to attach extra info to a SynthDef
(and,
with .store, persist it on disk too).
hjh
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM, LFSaw <lfsaw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey,
great idea!
one cosideration to make it more 2.0:
Tags
like they're used in delicious or, uhm, all other web2.0 sites.
It's a more open way of collecting information on the synths; we may
additionally add valid UGens as tags automatically…
--
James Harkins /// dewdrop world
jamshark70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.dewdrop-world.net
"Come said the Muse,
Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
Sing me the universal." -- Whitman
_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/
sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
--
http://www.mcld.co.uk
_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/
sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/