Phil Stone skrev: > 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 drop a patch, I'll be glad to test it. >>> >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
