2018-01-06 13:35 GMT-03:00 Lucas Cordiviola <lucard...@hotmail.com>: > I steel believe that the “best practice” is [foo/obj]. At least for > sharing patches. At home or with live-patching is another story. >
I've been responding to this thread and changing the focus to how declare works and how should it work, but I haven't replied what I think it's the best practice for sharing patches... so +1 for namespaces But personally, I hate using them for my own stuff. I don't use [declare] either, cause it still doesn't quite work for me, and we've been discussing ways to improve/enhance it, as I pointed in my first reply here on this thread. for my own stuff, I just try to rely on as few libraries as I can, and I just don't use objects that have the same name and do different things, so I'm just happy to not bother with any namespace/declare nonsense, I just add the libraries to my path and enjoy them cheers > > The only things that needs to get fixed are some single binary libs. To > put some random example some objects on iemlib already work with > [iemlib/obj] and others don't. > > Makes me think that if zexy and iemlib (and other single binary) support > [foo/obj] every thing will be under control. > > I'm not a Gem user so I don't know if it has potential name clashes > > > > -- > > Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas. > > On 1/6/2018 10:41 AM, Christof Ressi wrote: > >> (which actually might be tricky depending on platform/how their system > is set up). > > exactly, that's why it's better not to make any assumptions. just tell > users: "needs zexy, cyclone ..." and it's their responsibility to add the > necessary search paths/load libs if necessary. > > > > and again: > > > >>> imagine you want to use both [foo/obj] and [bar/obj] in the same > >>> abstraction. how could you possibly force on or the other with > >>> declare? > > > >> Gesendet: Samstag, 06. Januar 2018 um 12:53 Uhr > >> Von: "Derek Kwan" <derek.x.k...@gmail.com> > >> An: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> > >> Cc: "Christof Ressi" <christof.re...@gmx.at>, Pd-List < > pd-list@lists.iem.at> > >> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice > >> > >> > >>>> And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if > >>>> [declare] cannot always force a priority, shouldn't it? > >>> I don't think so. [declare]'s job is to add paths to the search path > >>> and load libraries. it has nothing to do with namespacing. > >>> > >>> imagine you want to use both [foo/obj] and [bar/obj] in the same > >>> abstraction. how could you possibly force on or the other with > >>> declare? > >>> > >> Well, I suppose one way of forcing the use of cyclone's gate without > >> typing out the entire thing and dealing with this whole namespacing > >> thing is to basically use the -noprefs flag when launching pd (and > >> assuming the people you are distributing the patch to have Pd somewhere > >> in their path which might be a big if, you can send along a shell script > >> that launches pd with that flag for them) and using [declare] to control > >> what gets loaded and what paths are added (which actually might be > >> tricky depending on platform/how their system is set up). And of course > >> not loading the prefs file affects more than just paths/loading... > >> > >> So maybe now that I type it out this isn't such a simple idea to > >> implement haha, but maybe it could be helpful for some use cases... > >> > >> Derek > >> -- > >> Derek Kwan > >> www.derekxkwan.com > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ > listinfo/pd-list >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list