(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