On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:49 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> I am curious why you chose to make it a loader rather than to make >> it part of the core? > > ??? > just to refresh everyones memories: > i have originally written the hexloader as a patch against pd-vanilla. > zthe functionality was: setupfun-mangling and filename-mangling. > this was in times before the sys_loader mechanism existed. > miller then applied my patch (i think for pd-0.39, but i am not > sure about pd-versions). > miller also applied tg's sys_loader patch. > in the next release of Pd, the hexloader was reduced to setupfun- > mangling only. > > i then thought (and still think) that miller has some reason to > reduce the hexloader-functionality in pd-core. > however, at the same time he provides an alternative to create your > own loader, so why not use that one instead? > > e.g. i could have bothered to get [>~] into core pd for 7 long years. > instead i chose the suggested way by writing an external that > provides [>~]. this has worked fine, why should i change it? why > should i have spent energy to get something i already have?
Ah, ok, I didn't realize that Miller has scaled back the loader stuff. > (why do i have to spend energy in explaining this?) Maybe because you want people to use your code? :D >> For example, it would be nice to be able to write <~ in tcl with >> tclpd, if need be. > > > yes indeed it would be nice. > how do you think it should work (if done in core-pd)? > why do you think it is impossible to do this with an external loader? > As a loader that worked for other loaders would be even better. .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- All information should be free. - the hacker ethic _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
