On Jan 13, 2006, at 4:17 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
but probably there is no way around.
so i have re-submitted a patch to the patch-tracker. the new version now appends ".pd" to the receiver-name (using the pd-function addfileextent() which i just stumbled across and which seems to do what i need)
so now [foo/bar] will bind to "pd-foo/bar.pd" (and for compatibility to "pd-bar.pd".
I am glad the .pd issue worked out easily.
I just thought of one thing. The "pd-bar.pd" compatibility binding for [foo/bar] might not be the best thing to have. If you had [foo/bar] and [bar], you would not be able to insure that you are independently sending messages to [bar] with the symbol "pd-bar.pd" since both [foo/bar] and [bar] would listen to pd-bar.pd.
I vote for clean implementation over backwards compatibility. (it is still pd 0.* 8-)
.hc
currently ".pd" is always suffixed (regardless of the actual file-extension). probably this could be done in a cleaner (more complicated) way, that respects the actual file-extension.
so this should fix most concerns.
the new patch is called "bind2classname.pd.diff" and i deleted the old one (which, btw, contained leftovers like m_class.c~...)
mfg.adsr. IOhannes
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore