>> So why aren't all (or at least nearly all) external developers simply using "setup" as the entry point?
> yes, I've asked that myself and I think they just could. Have a look at the Max part of pd~: the setup function is simply called 'main'.
Here's the probable reason-- current practice is aimed at the maximally complicated library which has a makefile that allows it
to be built both as a single binary *or* with one class per binary. In that case you must have uniquely-named setup functions
per class that can be called from a central library setup.
Which I suppose would make more sense *if* the developer's choice of single- or multi-binary style was merely an
implementation detail. But even with your patches it isn't-- with multi-binary style I can do [declare -lib foo/bar] whereas with
the single-binary style that won't work.
-Jonathan