let me add: of course any platform should be able to view on web.
tolve

>Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 08:00:09 +0100
>To: Torsten Anders ,
>
>From: tolve 
>Subject: Re: ugen test-level status in doc?
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>i have been doing quite a bit of database development lately in filemaker
>pro which runs cross platform on mac, windows, and can work off the web as
>well. would be willing to create structure to deal with the information on
>opcode status in filemaker that could be easily updated by any number of
>people given access to it on web and willing to do the *hard* work of
>compiling and entering the "easy to update" information.
>
>disclaimer: i work on mac and have not ever tested on windows though many
>people  do run filemaker on both (allegedly fast becoming the best selling
>database). and have never posted any of my databases on the web. filemaker
>list postings indicate that there shouldn't be too many wrinkles.
>
>tolve
>
>>seems no one had answered on that so I dare to:
>>
>>I think such a database could really improve the usabily of csound (at least
>>for me...). And I am willing to collect infos.
>>But I think: if it is used as a collection of know problems, the really
>>question
>>is: how keep such a db up to date?
>>
>>Torsten Anders
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 you wrote:
>>>Hi, I wonder if anyone else thinks that it would be very usefull if
>>>there were some easy way to compile some sort of database of the
>>>"correctness" of the various csound orc ugens and function generators.
>>>In other words, is there a workable way to provide some sort of
>>>information as to what ugens are generally known to work, and which ones
>>>are either untested or known to be broken?
>>>
>>>I'm thinking both of the person who is casually trying out csound for
>>>the first  time, and most likely does not want to immediately venture
>>>into source-level debugging, and also of people like me, whose time is
>>>limited, and hence might in some circumstances want to avoid using
>>>opcodes that have not been verified to work as advertised.
>>>
>>>I suspect that at any given point in time, probably somewhere between 10
>>>and 50 percent of the included opcodes don't work correctly in many
>>>common circumstances. This is just a wild guess based on my own
>>>experience, and from my reading of this mailing list.
>>>
>>>So, it would be helpfull to know which of these ugens are heavilly used
>>>and generally assumed to work, and which are the ones that haven't been
>>>really exercised by anyone who knows enough to tell that they don't work
>>>right.
>>>
>>>Of course, the problem here is how to compile this sort of information.
>>>I don't have an answer for this. Maybe for starters, if people would
>>>post to the list when they have used a certain ugen and found no
>>>problems? Of course, this would add a lot of traffic to this list, but
>>>maybe it would be worth it.
>>>
>>>Larry Troxler
>
>
>