On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Phil Stone wrote: > 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?
If Miller accepts the patches to [declare], then it would work in vanilla. .hc > > > Phil > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a more direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in practice, it can change entire economies. - Amy Smith _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
