On 02/02/2013 02:46 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> >> To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com> >> Cc: "pd-list@iem.at" <pd-list@iem.at> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:42 PM >> Subject: Re: [PD] standard library (was Re: [PD-announce] Pd-extended 0.43.4 >> released!) >> >> On 01/31/2013 11:45 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> >>>> To: pd-list@iem.at >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:40 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [PD] [PD-announce] Pd-extended 0.43.4 released! > > [...] > >> I agree theoretical consistency is not a worthy goal, that's not the point >> here at all. [import zexy] is a good example. Let's say a user is looking >> for >> objects to make and manipulate symbols, > > That user can click the search-plugin category link "symbol_op". > The result will be a user-friendly list of everything that would be in > a symbol-oriented library, prefixed with the lib name, followed by an icon > that links to lib info. If those results don't include everything, someone > can go in and add the keyword "symbol_op" to the help patch for the object > that needs to be included. Also, if "symbol_op" is too obscure, someone > can change the text of that link on the search plugin home page to be > something more descriptive. All of those tasks are extremely cheap to > carry out in Pd's current form, and there won't be long threads of > discussion since categories aren't mutually exclusive. > > >> how about calling tat library >> "symboltricks" or something descriptive, rather than an arbitrary name >> 'zexy'. >> In python, if I want to work with URLs, I load a 'urllib' or maybe >> 'urllib2'. > > I agree that aptly-named libraries built around a specific domain or > a logical grouping will improve the user experience, but not > nearly to the degree that implementing cross-platform doc search > functionality has. It will mostly facilitate memorizing the prefixes (libs) > of commonly used externals and reinforcing their shared attributes that > relate directly to that specific library name. But libraries don't overlap, > and _standard_ libraries are (hopefully) static and are difficult to > amend once set in place. Tags are the opposite of all that, and are > already implemented. > >> >> The point is that the old way of organizing libraries was around the author, >> not what the library does, like zexy. Newer libs like iemguts, pmpd, log, >> etc. are organized around a topic, and that makes much more sense. That's a >> very widely established paradigm for libraries across basically all >> languages. >> >> Honestly, in the long run I think this will be less work than maintaining the >> system as it is now. There are so many exceptions and quirks that is really >> is hard to make progress because some forgotten quirk comes back and bites >> you. > > What are the maintenance problems solved by copying binaries into new > directories?
The point is to reduce complexity and exceptions to consistency. Once example where just copying an external would reduce complexity is taking an object out of zexy. Zexy has a very complicated build system because it has a huge array of objects, many of which will not build on every system, things like [lpt]. Therefore the build system needs to configure itself based on what is available. A standard library would only have things that build on every system, so a much simpler build system can be used (like the library template). > Also-- you will end up with objects that have different licenses in the same > lib. > Is there a precedent for that in any programming language? You will be able to consider the whole GPLv3+. There will need to be other copyirght notices from BSD licensed code, but that's manageable. .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
