Phil Stone skrev:
Phil Stone wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
The idea is to embed the library settings into the patch. In
Pd-0.40.3-extended, if you added this to the patch, it would work for
any Pd-0.40.3-extended install:[import mrpeach]
Or could use Miller's declare, but I don't remember what the state of
the declare bugs were in 0.41.4. It would be something like:[declare -lib mrpeach]
or maybe
[declare -stdpath extra/mrpeach]
.hc
Just drop a patch, I'll be glad to test it.
Just to be clear, does this mean if I use [import] in a patch, it becomes incompatible with vanilla Pd? Or can [import] be um, imported into vanilla Pd?
I apologize for following-up my own post, but this is a fairly important point, and I think it needs clarification. I'm about to release an abstraction, and I used [import] to eliminate a few dozen [mrpeach/...] style invocations of Martin Peach's OSC objects. Up until now, my abstraction would work with vanilla Pd if a couple of externals/libs were included (mrpeach being one of them). Have I now completely blocked out any vanilla Pd users by using [import]?
Of course, I could use [declare], but I've seen some questions about [declare] bugs on this list.
Is my only choice to go back to the redundant (and rather ugly) [mrpeach/routeOSC] style, in order to be compatible with vanilla Pd?
Is it rude to ask why we are essentially forking a very useful object?
Is there any possibility of this being resolved into one, compatible object?Phil Stone www.pkstonemusic.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list