I actually do like pack~/unpack~ a lot, because they have control counterparts and also MAX uses something similar but prepends 'mc.' to it, so [mc.pack~] and [mc.unpack~] are exactly what [pack~] and [unpack~] do!
On the other hand, if we really want to avoid this collision badly, maybe we could use a similar convention to specify an object that is multichannel aware, something quite new in the pd world. I'm not saying we should use the same 'mc.' convention. I know using "." is not much common in the Pd world, but in ELSE I use it and have plans to add many multichannel aware externals that would make things simpler and while we don't have our [clone] solution for internal and external objects, like a muti channel [dac~] object called [dac.mc~]. I like it better that the mc comes later as objects would be alphabetically next to their multichannel version. This would also prevent people from thinking it's an external from Cyclone that mimics the original. So... what about [pack.mc~] and [unpack.mc~]? maybe just [packmc~] and [unpackmc~] as well... but I like "." cheers Em seg., 23 de jan. de 2023 às 06:38, Roman Haefeli <[email protected]> escreveu: > On Mon, 2023-01-23 at 08:40 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > > > i would prefer this. > > howe about the [split~]/[merge~] pair suggested by Jean-Yves? > > I think those are more descriptive names, regardless of the name > collision problem. > > + 1 > > > in retrospect i wouldn't have named the zexy objects like i did, but > > i > > was young and needed the money. > > I don't think 'pack~' and 'unpack~' fit any less to what zexy's objects > do. Like their non-tilde counterparts, they pack to lists und unpack > from lists. I think those names are quite good. > > Roman > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
