Martin Peach wrote:
Lex Ein wrote:
every object that is actually part of a library. The internal objects
would be pd:objectname, then the loose ones would be extra:objectname, externs:objectname or somesuch. ...?
basically this is what i proposed 2 years ago (although is used "." instead of ":"). it worked with 3 lines of code-change in pd's main source and no code-change at all in the externals.
but again, it doesn't help us with nameclashes at all (or at least with the C-function-clashes), but only helps/disturbs the pd-users to understand which objects they are using.
another strong objection is, that this will be more of a curse than a cure when libraries get renamed (and it doesn't help at all with single-external-libraries)
however, while i use the CVS, i do not think that it is a good idea, to make it *the* standard. there are people who refuse to work with the CVS (however irrational their reasons might be), other people see the CVS as a distribution platform (and not as a community-based development platform).
so i would favour some other mechanism (but have no idea which one ;-))
mfg.a.sdr IOhannes
PS: as for Gem's [counter]: it is there because it is there; i have no problem to remove it entirely - which brings us back to the old discussion to remove markEX from GEM (and probably check it into the "main" CVS); -- furthermore i really think that [counter] should be an abstraction instead of an external (as C-objects make things appear more complicated than they are)
PPS: i remember having heard something about "static" functions in C; anybody can shed a light on this ....