Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > On Sep 12, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote: > > >> Hallo, >> Phil Stone hat gesagt: // Phil Stone wrote: >> >> >>> 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]? >>> >> AFAIK [import] is an external, for vanilla users it would just be an >> additional dependency to install. >> >> Another problem, maybe bigger problem, is that using [import] like in >> pd-extended requires a certain directory layout. For example to make >> [import mrpeach] work in that it makes [routeOSC] availabe, pd-vanilla >> users not only need [import], they also have to put >> routeOSC.pd_linux|dll|... into a directory "mrpeach" in their path >> (e.g. >> into "extra") to let [import mrpeach] actually load [routeOSC]. >> >> But the problem is not as big as I make it. E.g. vanilla users >> could use >> an empty abstraction import.pd and keep Martin's objects in the Pd- >> path >> directly. They are available as [routeOSC],... directly then. >> Having the >> empty import.pd will make Pd shut up when [import mrpeach] is used and >> you could use [routeOSC] without prefix just fine. You could not use >> [mrpeach/routeOSC] then, but you don't want to anyway. ;) >> > > Or even easier, just copy the "mrpeach" folder in extra from a Pd- > extended build into your Pd-vanilla install's extra folder. Done. > Then you can use namespace prefixes too, like [mrpeach/routeOSC]. > > .hc > >
Yes, but the [import mrpeach] objects would throw errors, unless the pure-Pd end-user created empty [import] objects, as Frank pointed out. There doesn't seem to be a solution that is "one-size-fits-all." I know that the namespace problem in general is still under construction, and I'm happy to have [import], but it would be nice if there weren't such an incompatibility with vanilla Pd. Is there any chance that [declare] could be the solution for both builds -- what obstacles are there to that? Phil _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
