<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp19c19caeyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(38, 40, 42);">> On Sunday, May 12, 2019, 12:27:33 AM PDT, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi@gmx.at> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div id="ydp52285b38yahoo_quoted_8563477912" class="ydp52285b38yahoo_quoted"><div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">>> So why aren't all (or at least nearly all) external developers simply using "setup" as the entry point? <br clear="none"><br clear="none">> yes, I've asked that myself and I think they just could. Have a look at the Max part of pd~: the setup function is simply called 'main'.<br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Here's the probable reason-- current practice is aimed at the maximally complicated library which has a makefile that allows it </div><div dir="ltr">to be built both as a single binary *or* with one class per binary. In that case you must have uniquely-named setup functions </div><div dir="ltr">per class that can be called from a central library setup.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Which I suppose would make more sense *if* the developer's choice of single- or multi-binary style was merely an </div><div dir="ltr">implementation detail. But even with your patches it isn't-- with multi-binary style I can do [declare -lib foo/bar] whereas with </div><div dir="ltr">the single-binary style that won't work.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">-Jonathan</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>