2018-01-06 13:35 GMT-03:00 Lucas Cordiviola <lucarda27@hotmail.com>:
I steel believe that the “best practice” is [foo/obj]. At least for
sharing patches. At home or with live-patching is another story.

I've been responding to this thread and changing the focus to how declare works and how should it work, but I haven't replied what I think it's the best practice for sharing patches...

so +1 for namespaces

But personally, I hate using them for my own stuff. I don't use [declare] either, cause it still doesn't quite work for me, and we've been discussing ways to improve/enhance it, as I pointed in my first reply here on this thread.

for my own stuff, I just try to rely on as few libraries as I can, and I just don't use objects that have the same name and do different things, so I'm just happy to not bother with any namespace/declare nonsense, I just add the libraries to my path and enjoy them

cheers 


 

The only things that needs to get fixed are some single binary libs. To
put some random example some objects on iemlib already work with
[iemlib/obj] and others don't.

Makes me think that if zexy and iemlib (and other single binary) support
[foo/obj] every thing will be under control.

I'm not a Gem user so I don't know if it has potential name clashes



--

Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.

On 1/6/2018 10:41 AM, Christof Ressi wrote:
>> (which actually might be tricky depending on platform/how their system is set up).
> exactly, that's why it's better not to make any assumptions. just tell users: "needs zexy, cyclone ..." and it's their responsibility to add the necessary search paths/load libs if necessary.
>
> and again:
>
>>> imagine you want to use both [foo/obj] and [bar/obj] in the same
>>> abstraction. how could you possibly force on or the other with
>>> declare?
>
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 06. Januar 2018 um 12:53 Uhr
>> Von: "Derek Kwan" <derek.x.kwan@gmail.com>
>> An: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <porres@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi@gmx.at>, Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
>> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>>
>>
>>>> And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if
>>>> [declare] cannot always force a priority, shouldn't it?
>>> I don't think so. [declare]'s job is to add paths to the search path
>>> and load libraries. it has nothing to do with namespacing.
>>>
>>> imagine you want to use both [foo/obj] and [bar/obj] in the same
>>> abstraction. how could you possibly force on or the other with
>>> declare?
>>>
>> Well, I suppose one way of forcing the use of cyclone's gate without
>> typing out the entire thing and dealing with this whole namespacing
>> thing is to basically use the -noprefs flag when launching pd (and
>> assuming the people you are distributing the patch to have Pd somewhere
>> in their path which might be a big if, you can send along a shell script
>> that launches pd with that flag for them) and using [declare] to control
>> what gets loaded and what paths are added (which actually might be
>> tricky depending on platform/how their system is set up). And of course
>> not loading the prefs file affects more than just paths/loading...
>>
>> So maybe now that I type it out this isn't such a simple idea to
>> implement haha, but maybe it could be helpful for some use cases...
>>
>> Derek
>> --
>> Derek Kwan
>> www.derekxkwan.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list