On Tuesday 17 February 2009 22:29:10 Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > > IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > Frank Barknecht wrote: > > >How does minimizing the number of "loaded libraries" affect the goal of > > >storing preferences in patches? > > > > depends on what you mean by "storing the preferences in patches". > > one part of the preferences is the libraries to be loaded. > > personally, i think it is a good thing to explicitely require libraries > > in patches that need them. > > Yeah, but IMO one has nothing to do with the other. Just because a > pd-extended user would be forced to manage preferences manually doesn't > make [import] a builtin or makes everyone layout their patches and > externals as Pd-extended does it neither lets it [declare] work in > abstractions. So I don't see how a minimized set of libraries affects > anything. > > Personally I don't care what pd-extended loads and what not, but *if* > minimizing libraries should be done, then I think no library should be > loaded at all besides [import]. > > Ciao
without having any real grasp of pd-extended (sorry, never used it), my understanding is that [declare] and [import] may load libraries/objects relative to the patch, but they are still loaded in memory and *will* override the functionality expected in any patch loaded consecutively. without an unload routine for external libs, or a method to restrict dynamic loading of libs to the parent patch, then pd will still suffer nameclashes and aliasing of default behaviour for any patch loaded thereafter. i think this behaviour becomes even more confusing as the lib in question was never explicitly loaded by the user. please correct me if I am wrong or misguided! ciao, dmotd _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
