On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 12:09 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 05:40 -0400, Enrique Erne wrote:
Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 19:50 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
i'm not a developer but i would vote for declare i.e. [declare -stdlib mrpeach] to packOSC-help.pd then it would work with pd vanilla too.
The declare/namespace/import stuff is still very undefined, so I
think some experiementation would be good. I think you should go
ahead and try it using what you propose. That will be a good test
case. Then we'll figure out what works best.putting the helppatches besides the objects should fix most of the problems, no? no need for [declare] orgies and such
yo.. it would seem strange having to put [declare]s into help-patches in order to load the the objects, that they are explaining, IMO.
maybe i miss something:
to it seems _not_ strange to have a working help patch. the declare is documenting how one can use the object-class of the external (one of the 4, 5... 6 ways).
there are only so many in pd-extended, there aren't that many in pd-vanilla ( i can think of [declare] and pd-settings file only).
or do you think a user should configure the plist/pdrc/registry first and restart Pd before he can use the documentation/helpfile?
i think, as IOhannes said, that it would make sense to put classes (libraries, abstractions, single-object files) and their help-files at the same place. i don't see a benefit in having to tell a help-file where to find the class.
i meant: i don't see a benefit in having to tell _in_ a help-file where to find the class.
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de