Georg Holzmann wrote:
Hallo!
well, this would be useful, but whats the difference from [using zexy] to [zexy] - it also loads the lib because most libs implemented such a dummy object (or at least some) ?
note that the library does not have to implement an object of the same name. e.g. there is no [Gem] object in Gem, but you still can load Gem by creating an object [Gem]: the creation will fail but Gem will be loaded.
so you are correct, that using [using] just for library loading is a bit of an overhead (especially since people tend to externals instead of libraries)
i think that the [using] object should automatically add (an optional) library-prefix to objects that cannot be found. imagine you have a patch that contains [using zexy] (how comes this discussion always concentrates on my libraries...) and [nop]. since pd cannot find a [nop] object anywhere in it's space, it would try to find [zexy/nop] which eventually is an abstraction ./extra/zexy/nop.pd and thus can be resolved and loaded.
mfg.asd.r IOhannes
oops, i see we are in the never ending namespace discussion again and thus change the subject accordingly