[PD] inconsistencies with lib names
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Sep 19 09:18:56 CEST 2007
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:23 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>> Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>> Hallo,
>>>
>>>
>>> Another issue would be the use of objects not in Pd core in such a
>>> standard library. In my opinion and for reasons I mentioned several
>>> times during the last days a Pd-std-library should work without
>>> third-party externals (like the "purepd" or list-abs collections).
>>>
>>
>> as far as i have understood it, the standard library wants to duplicate
>> externals: e.g. an object that allows interfacing with the serial port
>> would be a copy of iem/comport that is named hardware/comport (or
>> whatever).
>> thus it would not rely on "3rd party" externals, but on stdlib
>> "internal" libraries. (with duplicate code and everything that follows
>> from it)
>
> They key difference would be that each stdlib would have a standardized
> interface, and each objectclass would conform to that interface. For
> example, there could be an 'io' standard lib. Everything in that lib
> would respond to [open(, [close(, etc. in the same way, the first inlet
> would behave similarly, and the first outlet would be the data in the
> form of lists, and the second outlet would be status info in the form of
> lists.
>
> So no, I don't think we should just copy over existing code without
> change. Instead, we should use existing code when it's useful, but
> focus on having a clean and consistent interface for each library.
thats what i meant with "duplicate externals"
mfga.dr
IOhannes
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list