Phil Stone wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> The idea is to embed the library settings into the patch. In >> Pd-0.40.3-extended, if you added this to the patch, it would work for >> any Pd-0.40.3-extended install: >> >> [import mrpeach] >> >> Or could use Miller's declare, but I don't remember what the state of >> the declare bugs were in 0.41.4. It would be something like: >> >> [declare -lib mrpeach] >> >> or maybe >> >> [declare -stdpath extra/mrpeach] >> >> .hc >> >> > > Just to be clear, does this mean if I use [import] in a patch, it > becomes incompatible with vanilla Pd? Or can [import] be um, imported > into vanilla Pd? >
I apologize for following-up my own post, but this is a fairly important point, and I think it needs clarification. I'm about to release an abstraction, and I used [import] to eliminate a few dozen [mrpeach/...] style invocations of Martin Peach's OSC objects. Up until now, my abstraction would work with vanilla Pd if a couple of externals/libs were included (mrpeach being one of them). Have I now completely blocked out any vanilla Pd users by using [import]? Of course, I could use [declare], but I've seen some questions about [declare] bugs on this list. Is my only choice to go back to the redundant (and rather ugly) [mrpeach/routeOSC] style, in order to be compatible with vanilla Pd? Is it rude to ask why we are essentially forking a very useful object? Is there any possibility of this being resolved into one, compatible object? Phil Stone www.pkstonemusic.com _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
