Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-10-17 21:08 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes :

>
> It's possible you saw the pattern in an abstraction library where this
> issue doesn't come up.
>

but I didn't. And it's also a pattern outside Pd (like in Max, for instance)

Your preference complicates the source code for no significant usability
> gain.
>

I guess that's debatable and a matter of personal preference, and I hope we
don't fall into that debate.

But thanks for your considerations, they're appreciated.

cheers
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list]

>> why do you think you are missing something?

> I usually do that, cause I'm not a programmer
[...]


> I also see this pattern here and there, so I'm 

> not coming up with this, would anyone have something 

> against using "."?

You said above you are not a programmer above, so I'll 

thrown in a programming perspective in the hopes that 

it's useful to you:


Your preference complicates the source 

code for no significant usability gain. 

The relationship between [foo_bar] and foo_bar_setup is 

easy to see, whereas the one between [foo.bar] and 

setup_fooOx2ebar is not.


If the "." character were used in a library name because it 

represents a well-known mathematical operator that would 

be one thing. But using it for personal preference at the 

expense of code readability isn't a worthwhile tradeoff 

from the standpoint of maintainability.


It's possible you saw the pattern in an abstraction 

library where this issue doesn't come up.


Also-- I used an uppercase "o" instead of a zero just 

to drive the readability point home.


Best,
Jonathan

> cheers 

___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Simon Iten]

well, yes :-)

i’m used to files that end with a suffix .whatever
the .whatever usually designates the filetype. so using a . before the filetype 
suffix is much harder to read for me and totally uncommon.

while this is not an issue within pd itself it is still worth considering i 
think.

> On 17 Oct 2017, at 22:00, Alexandre Torres Porres  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 2017-10-17 17:45 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes  >:
> > Well, here's what I have, an object named [allpass.rev~]
> 
> As a practical matter, I still don't understand why you are trying 
> to use "." instead of "_".
> 
> not trying anymore, I succeeded, so it seems.
> 
> and I already said it's just a matter of personal preference, not much else 
> to add
> 
> I also see this pattern here and there, so I'm not coming up with this, would 
> anyone have something against using "."?
> 
> cheers 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-10-17 17:45 GMT-02:00 Jonathan Wilkes :

> > Well, here's what I have, an object named [allpass.rev~]
>
> As a practical matter, I still don't understand why you are trying
> to use "." instead of "_".
>

not trying anymore, I succeeded, so it seems.

and I already said it's just a matter of personal preference, not much else
to add

I also see this pattern here and there, so I'm not coming up with this,
would anyone have something against using "."?

cheers
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list]

> Well, here's what I have, an object named [allpass.rev~]
As a practical matter, I still don't understand why you are trying 
to use "." instead of "_".
-Jonathan
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

well, just tested in windows and linux and it worked :)

2017-10-17 17:23 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :

>
> why should it not work?
>

I dunno, that's why I asked, it wasn't clear it'd be fine without hexloader


> why do you think you are missing something?
>

I usually do that, cause I'm not a programmer


> > Why do you want to avoid using an underscore?
>
> +1
>

I just don't like it, I prefer much more to be able to use the "." option

cheers and thanks for the help
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 10/17/2017 08:59 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Well, here's what I have, an object named [allpass.rev~]
> 
> I compiled a file name "allpass.rev~.pd_darwin", I have
> a allpass.rev~-help.pd, all works fine here in the mac, and all I had to do
> was having a  setup_allpass0x2erev_tilde()  function in the code.
> 
> Now, what am I missing? Is this not gonna work elsewhere? Say, Windows,
> Linux?

why should it not work?
why do you think you are missing something?

gfasmdr
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

Well, here's what I have, an object named [allpass.rev~]

I compiled a file name "allpass.rev~.pd_darwin", I have
a allpass.rev~-help.pd, all works fine here in the mac, and all I had to do
was having a  setup_allpass0x2erev_tilde()  function in the code.

Now, what am I missing? Is this not gonna work elsewhere? Say, Windows,
Linux?

cheers


2017-10-17 16:41 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :

> On 10/17/2017 07:44 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
> >
> >> and how come underline works just fine?
> > Because Pd's loader mechanism searches for the symbol "${libname}_setup",
> > where "${libname}" is the name of the library being loaded.
> > If you make sure that "${libname}" is drawn from the set of characters
> thatcan appear in a C function name, then users will be able to load your
> object
> > in all the ways that Pd provides (using declare, using an absolute path
> name,
> > etc.)
> > If instead you use characters that cannot appear in a C function name,
> you
> > either limit the ways that users can load that library or require
> complicated
> > workarounds like hexloader in order to make the library generally
> loadable.
> >
>
> for what it is worth, hexloader is not *very* complicated.
>
> what most people seem to forget is, that hexloader really consists of
> two parts, solving two different problems:
> - allowing file names that would otherwise be forbidden (by the
> underlying filesystem)
> - allowing setup functions names that would otherwise be forbidden (by
> the C-standard)
>
> the allowed characters in C functions are well defined, e.g. [1]
> the allowed characters in filenames are filesystem dependent, but a good
> overview can be found at [2].
>
> both problems are somewhat similar, as they try to encode the forbidden
> characters into something not forbidden.
> they both use the same method: replacing the forbidden characters with a
> hex-representation.
>
> now the good news is, that if your object name only falls into one
> category, then you only need to deal with that part.
>
> the part of the hexloader implementation that is built into Pd, only
> tackles the 2nd problem (function names).
> since C function names are much more restrictive than file names, this
> usually covers most problems (though obviously not all).
>
> so, if you want an external that contains characters allowed on the
> filesystem but forbidden as (part of) a function name, you only need to
> provide a hexloadable name for the setup function, and don't have to
> worry about ugly filenames that nobody understands.
>
> furthermore, you don't even need to remember the way those hexloadable
> setup function name is to be constructed. simply compile your external
> into "foo.bar.pd_linux", start Pd with "-verbose" and try to instantiate
> [foo.bar].
> Pd will fail to load the external (as it cannot find and call the setup
> function), but will display the setup name it tried to find when setting
> the log-level to "all".
>
> >> What other easy options do I have besides "_"?
> > Why do you want to avoid using an underscore?
>
> +1
>
>
> gamdsr
> IOhannes
>
>
> [1] http://www.c4learn.com/c-programming/c-variable-nameing-rules/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename#Reserved_characters_and_words
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 10/17/2017 07:44 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
> 
>> and how come underline works just fine?
> Because Pd's loader mechanism searches for the symbol "${libname}_setup", 
> where "${libname}" is the name of the library being loaded.
> If you make sure that "${libname}" is drawn from the set of characters 
> thatcan appear in a C function name, then users will be able to load your 
> object 
> in all the ways that Pd provides (using declare, using an absolute path name, 
> etc.)
> If instead you use characters that cannot appear in a C function name, you 
> either limit the ways that users can load that library or require complicated 
> workarounds like hexloader in order to make the library generally loadable.
> 

for what it is worth, hexloader is not *very* complicated.

what most people seem to forget is, that hexloader really consists of
two parts, solving two different problems:
- allowing file names that would otherwise be forbidden (by the
underlying filesystem)
- allowing setup functions names that would otherwise be forbidden (by
the C-standard)

the allowed characters in C functions are well defined, e.g. [1]
the allowed characters in filenames are filesystem dependent, but a good
overview can be found at [2].

both problems are somewhat similar, as they try to encode the forbidden
characters into something not forbidden.
they both use the same method: replacing the forbidden characters with a
hex-representation.

now the good news is, that if your object name only falls into one
category, then you only need to deal with that part.

the part of the hexloader implementation that is built into Pd, only
tackles the 2nd problem (function names).
since C function names are much more restrictive than file names, this
usually covers most problems (though obviously not all).

so, if you want an external that contains characters allowed on the
filesystem but forbidden as (part of) a function name, you only need to
provide a hexloadable name for the setup function, and don't have to
worry about ugly filenames that nobody understands.

furthermore, you don't even need to remember the way those hexloadable
setup function name is to be constructed. simply compile your external
into "foo.bar.pd_linux", start Pd with "-verbose" and try to instantiate
[foo.bar].
Pd will fail to load the external (as it cannot find and call the setup
function), but will display the setup name it tried to find when setting
the log-level to "all".

>> What other easy options do I have besides "_"?
> Why do you want to avoid using an underscore?

+1


gamdsr
IOhannes


[1] http://www.c4learn.com/c-programming/c-variable-nameing-rules/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename#Reserved_characters_and_words



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Re: [PD] object names with "."

[Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list]

> and how come underline works just fine?
Because Pd's loader mechanism searches for the symbol "${libname}_setup", 
where "${libname}" is the name of the library being loaded.
If you make sure that "${libname}" is drawn from the set of characters thatcan 
appear in a C function name, then users will be able to load your object 
in all the ways that Pd provides (using declare, using an absolute path name, 
etc.)
If instead you use characters that cannot appear in a C function name, you 
either limit the ways that users can load that library or require complicated 
workarounds like hexloader in order to make the library generally loadable.

> What other easy options do I have besides "_"?
Why do you want to avoid using an underscore?
-Jonathan
   ___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

[PD] object names with "."

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

Hi, hiow much of a nightmare is it to compile an object with "." in its
name?

something like "allpass.rev~"

do I need hexloader, do I need to create an object with a weird name like
allpasse2x0rev~ or whatever?

cheers
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list