On 28/09/12 16:23, Miller Puckette wrote:
Well, I'm persuadable on this front. I'm concerned with unduly hogging
the object namespace - in general, every time I add an object name I
potentially introduce incompatiblities with someone's abstraction that
might have the same name. And there are 50 or so new classes (!) to provide.
I don't even have a list yet (no pun intended)
Perhaps it would be better to refactor the object / abstraction / binary
/ loading / namespace mechanism first, something along the lines of an
old discussion I had with HCS:
http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org/cm/2010-07-16_pure-data_libraries_conversation.html
Once that is fixed to something less baroque/crufty then it should be
easier for everyone to go nuts and have their own namespaces without
clobbering or hogging anything, and make patches more portable between
Pd variants.
I have no time to work on this for the forseeable future, but it's
something that needs doing sooner rather than later...
cheers
M
Thanks,
Claude
--
http://mathr.co.uk
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
