I vote for "_". There is two perspectives: the user, and the developer of pd. Often the user don't need to know about the exactly folder's tree. A good documentation eschew the mess
2007/7/2, victor vdaigu@gmail.com:
I vote for "_". There is two perspectives: the user, and the developer of pd. Often the user don't need to know about the exactly folder's tree. A good documentation eschew the mess
2007/7/2, Thomas O Fredericks tof@danslchamp.org:
I vote for no namespace, no prefix, it's difficult enough to organize files for pd, and many prefixes won't work with externals that
requires
a script, for example if I put my python scripts into extra/python, I'd call the script with
[pyext] with a namespace like that [py python/myscript myclass] but obviously it won't work, in fact I'd have to start pd with -path
python
or put the script into the patch's folder and put no namespace for the
script file reconized, same thing with tcl scripts, etc... I'd add that a good taxonomy should take into account any pd and external related files.
Using no namespace, no preffix is what started this whole mess.
Tom
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
victor