hi.
i try to move the threads from pd-list to here, as it is more appropriate (and my thread-view makes it almost impossible to see the subject lines due to the depth ;-))
i see that chris has submitted a hack to disable the pix_filmNEW/pix_movieNEW stuff.
i am fine with that for now, since pd-extended wants to be released soon, but on the long run i would rather have this reverted and have a look at why it failed to use pix_filmDarwin in the first place.
while disabling the entire code is a quick fix, i guess it will not really help us on the long run to unify these objects.
what i am also talking about for ages is to rename pix_film.cpp to pix_filmOS.cpp and pix_filmNEW.cpp to pix_film.cpp this should make the renaming-schemes less complicated (only 2 classes that will try to reserve the name [pix_film] instead of 3). probably we could also not use pix_film.cpp as a new name for pix_filmNEW.cpp (but i lack of good ideas; "NEW" should at least vanish and make place for something that tells us more about the functionality than the date...)
of course this also applies to pix_movie.
any objections to this?
and i would very much like to ask to speed gurus among us, whether it would be possible to use the pix_film(NEW) with optimized paths, in order to make pix_filmDarwin,... really superfluous and deprecate it on the long run.
fmga.sdr IOhannes