+1
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. Januar 2018 um 20:58 Uhr
> Von: "Lucas Cordiviola"
> An: "pd-list@lists.iem.at"
> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>
> I think Joao (the OP) is asking how to do in 2018 what he was doing back
>
I think Joao (the OP) is asking how to do in 2018 what he was doing back
on the “extended” years. IRRC he shares his lib which uses many other
objects from other libs.
Now there should be a proper way to do that with the cocktail “Deken,
[declare] & namespace”.
Deken - ? (only issue I know is t
2018-01-04 20:36 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 01/05/2018 12:17 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> >
> > The compiled object from the lib listed in the path doesn't get called,
> and
> > the one specified in [declare] gets called instead.
> >
>
> repeat the test with two abstractions havin
2018-01-02 5:54 GMT-03:00 João Pais :
>
> Also: I imagine that there isn't a problem with repeated declarations?
> Inside each abstraction there is a [declare], and a patch can always use
> lots of them.
>
I don't think there is
>
> A suggestion: I can write [declare -stdlib x], and there wi
search paths/load libs if necessary.
> >
> > and again:
> >
> >>> imagine you want to use both [foo/obj] and [bar/obj] in the same
> >>> abstraction. how could you possibly force on or the other with
> >>> declare?
> >
> >> Gesend
2018-01-06 7:53 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi :
> > So this is still safe if you're sharing a patch to be first opened on
> its own.
>
> in other words: it's not safe at all ;-)
>
why not? If you first open Pd with a patch that uses [declare], from
someone who shared it, it'll be guaranteed that it wo
2018-01-06 7:15 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 01/06/2018 04:04 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> > And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if [declare]
> > cannot always force a priority, shouldn't it?
>
> maybe.
> it would require a complete rewrite of the the object loa
Uhr
>> Von: "Derek Kwan"
>> An: "Alexandre Torres Porres"
>> Cc: "Christof Ressi" , Pd-List
>> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>>
>>
>>>> And to come back to my first remark here
uot;Alexandre Torres Porres"
> Cc: "Christof Ressi" , Pd-List
> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>
>
> >> And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if
> >> [declare] cannot always force a priority, sho
>> And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if
>> [declare] cannot always force a priority, shouldn't it?
>
> I don't think so. [declare]'s job is to add paths to the search path
> and load libraries. it has nothing to do with namespacing.
>
> imagine you want to use both [foo/obj]
Torres Porres"
> Cc: Pd-List
> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>
> > So this is still safe if you're sharing a patch to be first opened on its
> > own.
>
> in other words: it's not safe at all ;-)
>
> > And to
a second creator (e.g. "cyclone/gate")
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 06. Januar 2018 um 04:04 Uhr
Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres"
An: Pd-List
Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
ok, that changes things a bit.
It is still true that [declare] wil
On 01/06/2018 04:04 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> And to come back to my first remark here on this thread, if [declare]
> cannot always force a priority, shouldn't it?
maybe.
it would require a complete rewrite of the the object loading, with a
hierarchical class loading system.
a non-trivi
ok, that changes things a bit.
It is still true that [declare] will prioritize to first load an object
from that specified lib (let's call it lib1), even if there's another one
(lib2) with the same object listed in the path. But this only happens if
none of these objects have been called before.
On 01/05/2018 12:36 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> repeat the test with two abstractions having loading libraries providing
this should of course read: "having loading libraring providing".
it's getting late...
gfasmrd
IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 01/05/2018 12:17 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
>
> The compiled object from the lib listed in the path doesn't get called, and
> the one specified in [declare] gets called instead.
>
repeat the test with two abstractions having loading libraries providing
the same object.
e.g. abs1.pd us
how so? please elaborate...
In my example I had a dummy abstraction in a lib listed in the path, but
declare made it not call it.
are you saying this only happens cause it is an abstraction?
Because I made the test with a compiled object and I got the same
behaviour, no difference!
The compiled
On 01/04/2018 11:56 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Therefore, using [declare] will avoid name collisions and not the opposite.
only for abstractions.
gfadsmr
IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at
me.
Therefore, using [declare] will avoid name collisions and not the opposite.
cheers
>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 04. Januar 2018 um 22:14 Uhr
> Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres"
> An: "Christof Ressi"
> Cc: pd-l...@mail.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: Re: [PD] declare v
tdlib cyclone] will work.
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 04. Januar 2018 um 22:14 Uhr
Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres"
An: "Christof Ressi"
Cc: pd-l...@mail.iem.at
Betreff: Re: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
2018-01-02 12:37 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <
> binary library could've been loaded).
>
>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 15:58 Uhr
> Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres"
> An: "Christof Ressi"
> Cc: "João Pais" , pd-l...@mail.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best pr
On Jan 3, 2018 10:24 PM, "Derek Kwan" wrote:
"Christof Ressi" writes:
>> and usually involves sort of prefixing or suffixing for every
>> abstraction/external.
>
> I've also done this in the past.
> namespacing by prepending the folder name has one advantage, though:
> it provides you the possi
"Christof Ressi" writes:
>> and usually involves sort of prefixing or suffixing for every
>> abstraction/external.
>
> I've also done this in the past.
> namespacing by prepending the folder name has one advantage, though:
> it provides you the possibility to choose between the long (safe) and
short names are convenient in rapid prototyping while long names
are preferable if things ought to be robust.
but after all, it's a matter of taste I guess.
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Januar 2018 um 13:15 Uhr
> Von: "Derek Kwan"
> An: pd-l...@mail.iem.at
> Betreff: Re:
João Pais writes:
> Dear list,
>
> I'm trying to make my abstraction library vanilla-compatible, but
> nevertheless I need to use some externals. Since I didn't keep up with
> the vanilla progress the last years, I wanted to ask what is the best
> method to make sure that all externals are loaded
On 01/02/2018 08:50 PM, Lucas Cordiviola wrote:
> I agree with Christof, [foo/obj] not only makes sure that that obj is
i was talking sepcifically about [list-abs/list-splat].
mgfsard
IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
lmost guaranteed without some sort of namespacing.
>
>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 19:53 Uhr
>> Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig"
>> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at
>> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>>
>> On
, 02. Januar 2018 um 19:53 Uhr
> Von: "IOhannes m zmölnig"
> An: pd-list@lists.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>
> On 01/02/2018 07:34 PM, Lucas Cordiviola wrote:
> > Happy 2018 list!!!
> >
> > IMO [foo/obj] is the
On 01/02/2018 07:34 PM, Lucas Cordiviola wrote:
> Happy 2018 list!!!
>
> IMO [foo/obj] is the “best practice”.
i find [list-abs/list-splat] to be certainly bad practice.
i don't think there is one general "best practice" for these kind of
things (with the current state of affairs).
> I'm having
ndet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 16:37 Uhr
Von: "Christof Ressi" <mailto:christof.re...@gmx.at>
An: "Alexandre Torres Porres" <mailto:por...@gmail.com>
Cc: pd-l...@mail.iem.at<mailto:pd-l...@mail.iem.at>
Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best p
et: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 16:37 Uhr
> Von: "Christof Ressi"
> An: "Alexandre Torres Porres"
> Cc: pd-l...@mail.iem.at
> Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
>
> what do you mean by [declare cyclone]?
>
> in case you mea
b could be earlier in the search path (or the single binary
library could've been loaded).
Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 15:58 Uhr
Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres"
An: "Christof Ressi"
Cc: "João Pais" , pd-l...@mail.iem.at
Betreff: Re: [PD] declare vs.
questions
2018-01-02 8:02 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi :
> Hi, I think in your case you shouldn't need [declare] at all. [declare
> -stdlib somelib] makes the assumption that 'somelib' is installed in one of
> Pd's standard paths. This was maybe true for Pd extended where all
> libraries were in the
found
(instead of loading another external/abstraction with the same name which
happens to be in the search path)
Christof
Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Januar 2018 um 09:54 Uhr
Von: "João Pais"
An: pd-l...@mail.iem.at
Betreff: [PD] declare vs. namespaces - current best practice
Dear lis
Dear list,
I'm trying to make my abstraction library vanilla-compatible, but
nevertheless I need to use some externals. Since I didn't keep up with the
vanilla progress the last years, I wanted to ask what is the best method to
make sure that all externals are loaded:
- use [declare ]?
- use n
35 matches
Mail list logo
