On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:39:51AM -0800, Miller Puckette wrote: > Well, what I want to be able to do is put max-compatible objects into Pd > vanilla (such as gate and scale) without breaking libraries. However, I > didn't realize there were libraries out there that named things the same as > Pd built-ins, with the intention of not ever getting instantiated under > the original name. > > Maybe, if zexy/pack and zexy/unpack are only meant to be called using > their "path" names, it would be better to specify them as "zexy/pack" > etc. in class_new()? > > If it isn't possible to alias objects with external libraries, I don't see > how I can ever add a class to Pd once some library appears that uses the > same name. > > Ideas, anyone?
Hi Miller, This problem has been 100% solved already: <http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/pylang/importstatement.html> The described way of doing things is a win-win for developers and for users; both get maximum flexibility. I can't think of any good reason why we are still debating this and [declare] and [import] on this list. Example: [from max import gate] [from max import scale] [from zexy import *] then [gate] [scale] [pack] <- inbuilt is overridden and [import max] [import zexy] then [max/gate] [max/scale] [zexy/pack] <- inbuilt isn't overridden I hope this doesn't come across too blunt or unconstructive; I just want to see this issue get solved and disappear. Best, Chris. ------------------- http://mccormick.cx _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
