On Jul 21, 2004, at 1:31 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Martin Peach wrote:
Lex Ein wrote:
every object that is actually part of a library. The internal objects
would be pd:objectname, then the loose ones would be
extra:objectname, externs:objectname or somesuch. ...?basically this is what i proposed 2 years ago (although is used "."
instead of ":"). it worked with 3 lines of code-change in pd's main
source and no code-change at all in the externals.but again, it doesn't help us with nameclashes at all (or at least
with the C-function-clashes), but only helps/disturbs the pd-users to
understand which objects they are using.another strong objection is, that this will be more of a curse than a
cure when libraries get renamed (and it doesn't help at all with
single-external-libraries)however, while i use the CVS, i do not think that it is a good idea,
to make it *the* standard. there are people who refuse to work with the CVS (however irrational
their reasons might be), other people see the CVS as a distribution
platform (and not as a community-based development platform).so i would favour some other mechanism (but have no idea which one
;-))mfg.a.sdr IOhannes
PS: as for Gem's [counter]: it is there because it is there; i have
no problem to remove it entirely - which brings us back to the old
discussion to remove markEX from GEM (and probably check it into the
"main" CVS); -- furthermore i really think that [counter] should be an abstraction
instead of an external (as C-objects make things appear more
complicated than they are)Why not call it pix_counter like most of the other Gem stuff? I _have_
discovered that the 'pix' prefix means it's in GEM :) But having some way of referring to it as counter or pix_counter or
Gem.counter would seem better. That way the GEM counter would be
loaded if it was the first one found, while pix_counter would be a
synonym for the counter in GEM, and Gem.counter would tell pd to use
the counter in GEM and no other.
MarkEx should definitely be removed from Gem since its objects are not
specifically about graphics, and they are in the CVS anyway and all
distros related to the CVS, except for the vector objects, which could
be added without too much difficulty.
.hc
PPS: i remember having heard something about "static" functions in C;
anybody can shed a light on this ....Declaring a function static gives it file scope, so it is only known
to functions in the same file. That might solve the 'shadowed
declarations' error that occurs because two entities named 'exp' are
found in the source.Martin
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at to manage your subscription (including un-subscription) see http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to
realize his wishes.
Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish.
-William Carlos Williams