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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
