I know that the pd fileformat does not allow comments or headers. But I was thinking of a declaration in a header like "from iemlib import gate" and all gates in the patch would be iem ones. I dont like the idea of typing iem::gate all the time and I think it may be easier to define the object at the beginning of the pd file than replacing the text of every object. And you could use different library objects in different abstractions. Apart from that, I think, communication is best. Is there a list of all problem objects until now? i think also the capital letter-cyclone objects are problematic, because of the help-patches, which are not displayed correctly under windows.
Append (pd native, cyclone) Clip (pd native, cyclone) Line~ (pd native, cyclone) Snapshot~ (pd native, cyclone) Scope~ (pd native, cyclone) gate (iemlib, cyclone) prepend (iemlib, cyclone) split (iemlib, cyclone) and I think there are some cyclone dummies, which will be objects in the future (?). like sfplay~.
btw. arent there also problems with abstraction nameclashes?
marius.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Blechmann" TimBlechmann@gmx.net To: pd-dev@iem.at Cc: pd-list@iem.at Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:19 PM Subject: [PD] nameclashes
hi all ...
i'm currently thinking of a way to solve the nameclash problem (counter, scale, prepend, gate...)
here are some suggestions for a solution ... with some pros and cons:
- namespaces: add the library name like library/object or
library::object pros: - selectable at runtime
- the patch will work exactly as you expect, since you see that object is from library
cons: - "/" is already used for the search path (shouldn't be a big problem), "::" are two chars - only works if an object is compiled as library ... if a library is split to single externals (like the build system does) pd is not aware of the library name
- startup flav: having another flag like -force library/object or -force
library::object pros: - easy to use cons: - you can't use both library1::object and library2::object
behaviour of the patch depends on startup flags (less portable)
communication: figure out, if the external name is already in use
pros: - no implementation effords cons: - not really working (that's why we've got these problems *g*)
- standard behaviour: if object1 is doing the same as object2, except
that it is missing one feature, add this feature to object1, if they behave exactly the same, the nameclash isn't a problem any more ... (escept for the waste of memory) pros: - as above cons: - as above
personally i'd prefer the communication in combination with a startup flag ... but i'm curious about other ideas or comments ...
cheers ... tim
-- mailto:TimBlechmann@gmx.de ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say "I want to see the manager." William S. Burroughs
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list