On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Tue, 2/15/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
It's still a common vocabulary. You're not rewriting
the abstractions (or renaming them) every time. How do the users know (and ensure) that they're really the same ?
Well if the user is the person I send it to, the question makes no sense. They just run the patch and it works.
I mean the direct users of the abstractions. (call them developers if you like)
But GridFlow contains a lot more than abstractions. If it only contained abstractions, I'd just throw it in the patch's directory. It's the difference between someone using my patch with a few clicks, and emailing me back about why [blah] isn't creating, or why Pd says it can't connect to a nonexistent right inlet of [bloo]...
You can have all those problems with abstractions. This is because of two things : Pd looks for externals before it looks for abstractions ; and Pd doesn't look for an abstraction once a same-named external is loaded. Any name clash is possible (à priori).
So, if you have an abstraction called [oneshot], it will get overridden by any other [oneshot] that decides to register the name that is just "oneshot".
If you have a [pow~] abstraction, it could get overridden by another same-named class by just upgrading from one version of vanilla to another version of vanilla.
In both cases, this could mean attempt to connect to a nonexistent right inlet if you're lucky, otherwise, silently wrong behaviour that takes a long time to debug.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC