On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Martin Peach wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
they could, but it was an effort to do so. any "ordinary" external would not be able to do it.
So am I understanding it correctly, that Zexy's [pack] is not doing the fuddling Cyclone does and now suddenly became an object that overwrites internals by changes in Pd 0.42?
exactement!
because i didn't do any fudlling (well knowing that zexy's [pack] is not ready to replace Pd's [pack]; but stating the intention to become so LATER by using class_new("pack") - thinking that this was a safe thing to do), i was shocked that suddenly my pack would be used instead of the vanilla one.
I guess it never occurred to any of you to use objects with different names...
Or else why not just call every pd object "object" and then use paths to access them, like [pd/some/library/subdirectory/object]?
Just kidding in a frustrated sort of way.
Different names are a good idea, for sure. But Pd should also not go down in flames if someone happens to create an object with a name that is already used somewhere. Its not possible to know every single object that has ever been made.
I just ran into this myself trying to create an abstraction called "beat". Apparently, there is already a [beat], so I got unexpected results.
.hc
Martin
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General Smedley Butler