IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
A namespace already exists if you are not using libraries. When objects are compiled into separate objects, then you can use directories to create namespaces.
this is only half of the truth, as (in your example) [prepend] (without "namespace") will be used after using [cxc/prepend].
with "used" i meant "reserved";
you cannot call the _setup() functions for 2 identically named objects, no matter where they are: e.g. cxc/prepend.pd_linux and iemlib/prepend.pd_linux still can not used in coexistance within one patch as both of them export "void prepend_setup(void)"; pd will only call one of these.
ahem, what are you talking about really ? the cvs is a collaborative code base where people can check in whatever they produce. as soon as anyone will start kicking out off/renaming objects within a library (e.g. zexy) i will consider this as censorship, being a hard violation of "free as in speech".
of course, the packager (or anyone) can use the code and modify it as they like. they are free to decide which packages go into the "official" (rather: semi-official) distribution of pd-externals, they can even modify the code of the externals that go in there (at the point when they go in there; e.g. at pre-compilation time) however, i am strongly against modifying the code-base of externals itself (this is: the code the external-collection is derived from)
who will decide which "prepend" is the most simple and robust ? and who will pay for fixing up patches ?
and since lots of people seem to prefer cxc.prepend over iemlib.prepend i would btw want to know why: to me it seems that iemlib.prepend has more features
mfg.a.sdr IOhannes
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev