I vote for "_". There is two perspectives: the user, and the developer
of pd. Often the user don't need to know about the exactly folder's
tree. A good documentation eschew the mess
2007/7/2, victor <vdaigu@gmail.com>:
I vote for "_". There is two perspectives: the user, and the developer of pd. Often the user don't need to know about the exactly folder's tree. A good documentation eschew the mess
2007/7/2, Thomas O Fredericks <tof@danslchamp.org>:
> I vote for no namespace, no prefix, it's difficult enough to organize
> files for pd, and many prefixes won't work with externals that requires
> a script, for example
> if I put my python scripts into extra/python, I'd call the script with
> [pyext] with a namespace like that [py python/myscript myclass] but
> obviously it won't work, in fact I'd have to start pd with -path python
> or put the script into the patch's folder and put no namespace for the
> script file reconized, same thing with tcl scripts, etc...
> I'd add that a good taxonomy should take into account any pd and
> external related files.
Using no namespace, no preffix is what started this whole mess.
Tom
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list