On Apr 8, 2009, at 5:59 AM, cyrille henry wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
Inside of the objects themselves, I use always the [mapping/ reverse] form. Only in the help patches do I use the [reverse]
form. That convention seemed to make sense at the time, but I am
not married to it.since all mapping object are in the same directory, using the
[reverse] form inside the object will still work on pd-extended. but it will also make the mapping lib more flexible (you'll be able
to move the objects / copy them in your patch directory ). So i see
this as a big improvement of the situation.do you agree if i change this?
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true, otherwise I would say to
change it. Right now, a binary object will trump ANY abstraction,
even if it is in the same directory. So if someone loads a binary
object called "reverse", then [reverse] will ALWAYS be that binary, so
matter where you put reverse.pd or how you load it. [mapping/reverse]
prevents that.
This is a perfect case of why we should change the load order in Pd.
I think it should search for all object types in a given path
(i.e. .pd .pd_linux, .pd_lua, etc.) THEN it should search the next
path. Currently the opposite happens: it searches .pd_linux in all
paths, then the loaders (i.e. .pd_lua) in all paths, then the
abstractions in all paths.
.hc
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore