Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 08:44 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
yes, the pdmtl-abs need to get better promoted. they are not widely known outside the pd montreal community. and afaik there is not reason not to include them in pd-extended. they have a fancy patching style, but ok...
In general I think it's tricky if abstractions meant to be standard abstractions for Pd use externals themselves.
on one hand i agree with you, since a collection purely based on internals would be a nice thing to have as well (i even would prefer such a collection). on the other hand, i'd be interested to hear from you, what you mean by "it's tricky". what is wrong with declaring that pdmtl-abs are meant to provide a set of higher level abstractions based on pd-extended? the depencencies are clearly declared and are available for all platforms.
Abstractions for pd-extended could of course use any external included there[1], but I meant standard abstractions for (any distribution of) Pd.
[1] But note that even abstractions for pd-extended need to take care of nameclashes, i.e. use declare/import, use directory prefixes etc. Many abstraction collections are sloppy when handling this. (Even abstractions by pd-extended advocates can forget to always fully specify the full names of abstractions with import or a prefix. I don't want to point fingers, but to illustrate what I mean: In the "mapping" library max_n.pd uses [maximum] from Cyclone undeclared, disjoin.pd uses [float_argument] from purepd undeclared etc.)
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__