Hi all,
What about alt_0x3c0x3c0x3c_setup()? That would highlight that its an
but this really makes and object called [alt_0x3c0x3c0x3c] impossible!
alternate name, rather than just having an seemingly arbitrary reversal of the "setup" placement. And the function is called sys_load_lib_alt(). That makes more sense in terms of the API.
well calling it sys_load_lib_alt() was a very fast decision (so i am not proud of it). i still think that the alternative setup function should be called fundamentally differently, so that it is impossible to make an object with a normal setup-function that is named like the alternative function of another object.
but probably it would be nice to hear somebody else's opinion on this (at least from those who are not entirely bored of this thread)
using my loader patch the naming of the loader function would be irrelevant since it's just including in a chain of loader functions, starting with the classic (now called sys_loader_lib_internal) PD loader.
Concerning the setup function naming - how about xyz_altsetup ? it's true that it should be distinguished from the old naming, but should not have a prefix that excludes some object names.
best greetings, Thomas