On Dec 15, 2006, at 7:52 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
As the author of the only modified version of IEMGUI in five
years, I say no, we don't need this to happen.
It wasn't a question of need. We are all fed ;). Do you have any
actual objections?
well, i would not do it.
i am a string advocate of splitting the pd-core from its objects
(as far as this is possible: i don't think of getting rid of [pd],
[inlet], [switch~] and friends).
but there is no real use in getting IEMGUI's separated when the
numberbox, the signal-objects and the math are still part of core pd.
however, if you feel the urge to do so and you feel like patching
pd-vanilla for each release, go on.
you could also do a fork ;-)
(it all boils down to: do you have any real benefits from this? or
are you just bored and need some work to do oer the holidays ;-) ?)
If we are going to have full-fledged namespaces, than this is an
essential step. Think C without any #includes or Java without any
#imports. Only the bare minimum is in the language itself.
Everything else is a library.
The embedded iemgui objects are just an easy place to start, they are
already one-class per file. This would provide a test case for the
idea, and then we can figure out how to separate the rest.
As for patching the core, each Pd-extended release has 20+ patches
applied. This current one has 22-24, depending on platform (you can
see the list in packages/patches). Adding patches is trivial with the
patch management in packages/Makefile.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
_______________________________________________
PD-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
