On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hi Olaf et al,
I think that putting the indocator in the object box would cause misery, because whenever a new name clash arose everyone would have to go edit all their patches ... worse yet, what if two libraries are merged or for some other reason the name of a library changes...
So, it would be better somehow to be able to specify where to find specific classes as part of Pd's run-time environment, similarly to how "path" now works. This isn't a real solution either though... what if you're using an abstraction which assumes a different "gauss" from that of the calling patch. I don't know what to offer for that scenario!
Yes, I see the same problem with both, the namespace/path ( which are really very similar) and the "dynamic prefix".
The solution in this case is of coures to require a hard coded prefix, like xy_gauss and xz_gauss, or a better solution if the two gauss authors find a way to communicate and put their features into one "official" gauss object.
I have to say that personally I find the only situation where "namespaces" are really important is for example to provide compatibility, say with max, jMax, etc. But this luckily is a very well defined situation.
Guenter