[PD] external loading suggestion

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Martin Peach wrote:
> Lex Ein wrote:
>

  every object that is actually part of a library. The internal objects
> would be pd:objectname, then the loose ones would be extra:objectname, 
> externs:objectname or somesuch.
> ...?

basically this is what i proposed 2 years ago (although is used "." 
instead of ":"). it worked with 3 lines of code-change in pd's main 
source and no code-change at all in the externals.

but again, it doesn't help us with nameclashes at all (or at least with 
the C-function-clashes), but only helps/disturbs the pd-users to 
understand which objects they are using.

another strong objection is, that this will be more of a curse than a 
cure when libraries get renamed (and it doesn't help at all with 
single-external-libraries)

however, while i use the CVS, i do not think that it is a good idea, to 
make it *the* standard.
there are people who refuse to work with the CVS (however irrational 
their reasons might be), other people see the CVS as a distribution 
platform (and not as a community-based development platform).

so i would favour some other mechanism (but have no idea which one ;-))


mfg.a.sdr
IOhannes


PS: as for Gem's [counter]: it is there because it is there; i have no 
problem to remove it entirely - which brings us back to the old 
discussion to remove markEX from GEM (and probably check it into the 
"main" CVS);
-- furthermore i really think that [counter] should be an abstraction 
instead of an external (as C-objects make things appear more complicated 
than they are)

PPS: i remember having heard something about "static" functions in C; 
anybody can shed a light on this ....