On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:03 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> There is nothing stopping anyone from making a .dll on Windows >> with a setup function and sticking it in pd/extra. If someone >> tried to load it, Pd would make it's best effort, and the setup >> function won't create any inlets or outlets, so it would just sit >> there. > > this of course is plain wrong. > > the "setup"-function _never_ creates any inlets and outlets, or > even an object. > it is the "new"-function (aka creator) that handles instantiation. > > it is perfectly possible to create a dll that does not provide any > objectclasses (and is still "loaded" by Pd). it is not possible to > instantiate such a nonexistant objectlass though - it would always > "just sit there" in dashed lines...
Yes, you're right, I didn't go into detail. Without the setup function being called, the new function will never be called, and therefore no inlets and outlets would be created. But this is orthogonal to the thread. The point remains, even though Pd objectclasses on Windows use the same file extension as generic libraries (dll), it is not causing problems. .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- The arc of history bends towards justice. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
