[PD] sending OSC bundles. + help files?

[Steffen Leve Poulsen]

Phil Stone skrev:
> Phil Stone wrote:
>> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>   
>>> The idea is to embed the library settings into the patch.  In  
>>> Pd-0.40.3-extended, if you added this to the patch, it would work for  
>>> any Pd-0.40.3-extended install:
>>>
>>> [import mrpeach]
>>>
>>> Or could use Miller's declare, but I don't remember what the state of  
>>> the declare bugs were in 0.41.4.  It would be something like:
>>>
>>> [declare -lib mrpeach]
>>>
>>> or maybe
>>>
>>> [declare -stdpath extra/mrpeach]
>>>
>>> .hc
>>>   
Just drop a patch, I'll be glad to test it.
>>>     
>> Just to be clear, does this mean if I use [import] in a patch, it 
>> becomes incompatible with vanilla Pd?  Or can [import] be um, imported 
>> into vanilla Pd?
>>   
> 
> I apologize for following-up my own post, but this is a fairly important 
> point, and I think it needs clarification.  I'm about to release an 
> abstraction, and I used [import] to eliminate a few dozen [mrpeach/...] 
> style invocations of Martin Peach's OSC objects.  Up until now, my 
> abstraction would work with vanilla Pd if a couple of externals/libs 
> were included (mrpeach being one of them).  Have I now completely 
> blocked out any vanilla Pd users by using [import]?
> 
> Of course, I could use [declare], but I've seen some questions about 
> [declare] bugs on this list.
> 
> Is my only choice to go back to the redundant (and rather ugly) 
> [mrpeach/routeOSC] style, in order to be compatible with vanilla Pd?
> 
> Is it rude to ask why we are essentially forking a very useful object?  
> Is there any possibility of this being resolved into one, compatible object?
> 
> 
> Phil Stone
> www.pkstonemusic.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>