Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

+1 > Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. Januar 2018 um 20:58 Uhr > Von: "Lucas Cordiviola" <lucard...@hotmail.com> > An: "pd-list@lists.iem.at" <pd-list@lists.iem.at> > Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice > > I think Joao (the

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

I think Joao (the OP) is asking how to do in 2018 what he was doing back on the “extended” years. IRRC he shares his lib which uses many other objects from other libs. Now there should be a proper way to do that with the cocktail “Deken, [declare] & namespace”. Deken - ? (only issue I know is

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

2018-01-04 20:36 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig : > On 01/05/2018 12:17 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > > > > The compiled object from the lib listed in the path doesn't get called, > and > > the one specified in [declare] gets called instead. > > > > repeat the test with two

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

2018-01-02 5:54 GMT-03:00 João Pais : > > Also: I imagine that there isn't a problem with repeated declarations? > Inside each abstraction there is a [declare], and a patch can always use > lots of them. > I don't think there is > > A suggestion: I can write [declare -stdlib

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

r > >> 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:

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

2018-01-06 7:53 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi : > > So this is still safe if you're sharing a patch to be first opened on > its own. > > in other words: it's not safe at all ;-) > why not? If you first open Pd with a patch that uses [declare], from someone who shared it, it'll

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

2018-01-06 7:15 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig : > On 01/06/2018 04:04 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > > And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if [declare] > > cannot always force a priority, shouldn't it? > > maybe. > it would require a complete rewrite of

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

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 practic

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

> 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 firs

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

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

t> > An: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> > Cc: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at> > Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice > > > So this is still safe if you're sharing a patch to be first opened on its > > own. &

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

quot;cyclone/gate")   Christof Gesendet: Samstag, 06. Januar 2018 um 04:04 Uhr Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice ok, that changes things a bit.   It

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

On 01/06/2018 04:04 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if [declare] > cannot always force a priority, shouldn't it? maybe. it would require a complete rewrite of the the object loading, with a hierarchical class loading system. a

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

On 01/05/2018 12:36 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > repeat the test with two abstractions having loading libraries providing this should of course read: "having loading libraring providing". it's getting late... gfasmrd IOhannes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

On 01/05/2018 12:17 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > > The compiled object from the lib listed in the path doesn't get called, and > the one specified in [declare] gets called instead. > repeat the test with two abstractions having loading libraries providing the same object. e.g. abs1.pd

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

how so? please elaborate... In my example I had a dummy abstraction in a lib listed in the path, but declare made it not call it. are you saying this only happens cause it is an abstraction? Because I made the test with a compiled object and I got the same behaviour, no difference! The

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

On 01/04/2018 11:56 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > Therefore, using [declare] will avoid name collisions and not the opposite. only for abstractions. gfadsmr IOhannes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

or me. Therefore, using [declare] will avoid name collisions and not the opposite. cheers > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 04. Januar 2018 um 22:14 Uhr > Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> > An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.re...@gmx.at> > Cc: p

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

one] will work.   Gesendet: Donnerstag, 04. Januar 2018 um 22:14 Uhr Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.re...@gmx.at> Cc: pd-l...@mail.iem.at Betreff: Re: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice     2018-0

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

single > binary library could've been loaded). > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 15:58 Uhr > Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> > An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.re...@gmx.at> > Cc: "João Pais" <jmmmp...

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

On Jan 3, 2018 10:24 PM, "Derek Kwan" wrote: "Christof Ressi" writes: >> and usually involves sort of prefixing or suffixing for every >> abstraction/external. > > I've also done this in the past. > namespacing by prepending the folder name has

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

"Christof Ressi" writes: >> and usually involves sort of prefixing or suffixing for every >> abstraction/external. > > I've also done this in the past. > namespacing by prepending the folder name has one advantage, though: > it provides you the possibility to choose

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

.at > Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice > > João Pais <jmmmp...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Dear list, > > > > I'm trying to make my abstraction library vanilla-compatible, but > > nevertheless I need to use some externals. Sinc

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

João Pais writes: > Dear list, > > I'm trying to make my abstraction library vanilla-compatible, but > nevertheless I need to use some externals. Since I didn't keep up with > the vanilla progress the last years, I wanted to ask what is the best > method to make sure that all

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

On 01/02/2018 08:50 PM, Lucas Cordiviola wrote: > I agree with Christof, [foo/obj] not only makes sure that that obj is i was talking sepcifically about [list-abs/list-splat]. mgfsard IOhannes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

sort of namespacing. > > >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 19:53 Uhr >> Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig" <zmoel...@iem.at> >> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at >> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice >> >> On 01/02/2018

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

> Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig" <zmoel...@iem.at> > An: pd-list@lists.iem.at > Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice > > On 01/02/2018 07:34 PM, Lucas Cordiviola wrote: > > Happy 2018 list!!! > > > > IMO [foo/obj] is the “best pract

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

On 01/02/2018 07:34 PM, Lucas Cordiviola wrote: > Happy 2018 list!!! > > IMO [foo/obj] is the “best practice”. i find [list-abs/list-splat] to be certainly bad practice. i don't think there is one general "best practice" for these kind of things (with the current state of affairs). > I'm

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

i" <christof.re...@gmx.at><mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at> An: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com><mailto:por...@gmail.com> Cc: pd-l...@mail.iem.at<mailto:pd-l...@mail.iem.at> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice what do you

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

f Ressi" <christof.re...@gmx.at> > An: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <por...@gmail.com> > Cc: pd-l...@mail.iem.at > Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice > > what do you mean by [declare cyclone]? > > in case you mean [declare -stdpath

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

.@gmail.com>, pd-l...@mail.iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice questions   2018-01-02 8:02 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <christof.re...@gmx.at[mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at]>:Hi, I think in your case you shouldn't need [declare] at all. [declare -stdlib some

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

questions 2018-01-02 8:02 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi : > Hi, I think in your case you shouldn't need [declare] at all. [declare > -stdlib somelib] makes the assumption that 'somelib' is installed in one of > Pd's standard paths. This was maybe true for Pd extended where all

Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

external/abstraction with the same name which happens to be in the search path) Christof Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 09:54 Uhr Von: "João Pais" <jmmmp...@gmail.com> An: pd-l...@mail.iem.at Betreff: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice Dear list,  I'm t

[PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice

Dear list, I'm trying to make my abstraction library vanilla-compatible, but nevertheless I need to use some externals. Since I didn't keep up with the vanilla progress the last years, I wanted to ask what is the best method to make sure that all externals are loaded: - use [declare ]? - use