Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 15:48 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
how important is the portability between pd-extended and pd-vanilla/externals considered? any solution, that involves the [mylib/myclass] scheme creates patches, that are broken on a pd installation with multiclass externals.
at the beginning of this discussion (probably 2002 or so; i have no idea) i posted a diff for Pd that would allow this: using [mylib/myclass] after loading the multiclass-library "mylib" containing the class "myclass".
the patch never got accepted (iirc, the arguing was that nameclashes have to be solved on a social level rather than on a technical one)
i think it is not up to me to ask such questions, but wouldn't it be generally better, if the multiple-class-per-external format would be simply dropped? this would also have the nice side effect, that noone would ever use aliasses anymore, which currently (and in the future?) aren't fully supported.
i think "generally better" would be to drop external support entirely from Pd; this would reduce nameclashes a lot; i don't know how to solve nameclashes of abstractions (without dropping abstraction support), but one idea would be to just not distribute any collections (like Pd-extended) anymore, and make the problem a _private_ one.
but i think we all agree that this is not going to happen.
anyhow, feel free to make Gem a single object per file library :-)
fgmasdr IOhannes