On Nov 16, 2009, at 3:10 PM, zmoel...@iem.at wrote:
Quoting "Hans-Christoph Steiner" <h...@at.or.at>:
I am in the process of working on my 'framesync' library, and I
just had a thought that I am not sure has come up before. Lots of
times, we want to use send/receives in reusable code, but with a
global namespace, there is the potential for nameclashes. So I
propose that for libraries, we make it a 'best practice' to use
the same namespace prefix as you would for loading an object.
For example, this 'framesync' library, I need to send the FPS
(Frames Per Second) to all the objects, so it needs to be a global
send. So just like I could do [framesync/fstabplay~] the
internal send/receive would be [send framesync/fps] and [receive
framesync/fps].
while you are there, i would propose to use "/foo/bar" rather than
"foo/bar".
while this doesn't fully match the [foo/bar] idiom for object-names,
it does fit nicely into OSC.
Hmm, I guess that's a parallel. I personally never use OSC, so I
don't see a reason to follow its syntax instead of Pd's syntax. Since
the foo/bar syntax is already there, I think its best to stick with it
for Pd. Then for people who use OSC, it would be an easy translation.
Plus wouldn't OSC namespaces follow the project rather than a
library? I guess if you use OSC in a library, then it would follow
the library.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://at.or.at/hans/
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
