On Dec 15, 2006, at 7:52 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
As the author of the only modified version of IEMGUI in five years, I say no, we don't need this to happen.
It wasn't a question of need. We are all fed ;). Do you have any actual objections?
well, i would not do it. i am a string advocate of splitting the pd-core from its objects (as far as this is possible: i don't think of getting rid of [pd], [inlet], [switch~] and friends). but there is no real use in getting IEMGUI's separated when the numberbox, the signal-objects and the math are still part of core pd.
however, if you feel the urge to do so and you feel like patching pd-vanilla for each release, go on. you could also do a fork ;-)
(it all boils down to: do you have any real benefits from this? or are you just bored and need some work to do oer the holidays ;-) ?)
If we are going to have full-fledged namespaces, than this is an essential step. Think C without any #includes or Java without any #imports. Only the bare minimum is in the language itself. Everything else is a library.
The embedded iemgui objects are just an easy place to start, they are already one-class per file. This would provide a test case for the idea, and then we can figure out how to separate the rest.
As for patching the core, each Pd-extended release has 20+ patches applied. This current one has 22-24, depending on platform (you can see the list in packages/patches). Adding patches is trivial with the patch management in packages/Makefile.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[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