Lex Ein wrote:
But it sure seems like encouraging "libraryname_objectname" aliases as in maxlib would go a long way to avoiding and providing a user-side method to resolve nameclashes, and allowing simultaneous (within the same patch or abstraction) usage of objects with identical root objectnames. Without "changing a line of code", by the way.
I agree. By changing the code, possibly extend the thing by having libraryname:objectname being an optional way of referring to objectname. At the moment I am impeded from using a lot of objects in pd by not knowing where they are, as some seem to be integrated into pd, others are in the externs, others in extras, others invisible inside libs... In the patcher file itself, libraryname:objectname should be used for 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. ...?
Martin