On May 11, 2006, at 8:19 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
You will have to be careful about nameclashes. You may also find that several of your externals already have an equivalent under another name in Pd.
Nameclashes aren't such an issue with namespaces/Pd-extended. But yes,
i think matju did not mean _these_ nameclashes (correct me if i'm wrong), but rather _those_ where a max object and a pd object share the name but not the functionality. which would give you a false sense of security of a successfull patch-conversion.
That's what cyclone is for. Objects from any other library should not be assumed to be Max compatible, as a rule. There are already plenty of duplicated max object names with differing functionality, including in the core, so it doesn't seem so useful to start worrying about that now.
.hc
its good to avoid needless nameclashes.
it's also good to avoid necessary nameclashes.
mfg.vser. IOhannes
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!