[PD-dev] qualified external-names (was: namespaces :: out now)

[IOhannes zmoelnig]

Krzysztof Czaja wrote:
> hi IOhannes and all,

 > So, I really do not know, if this is going to be a real step
 > forward, or just a fuel keeping this thread alive for some more
 > time?
 >

neither do i know.
however, i would like this thread to be finished sometimes and that is 
why i did write some code.
it was hacked quite fast without real stress tests and the idea seemed 
ok to me.

i just don't want this question to pop up every other week

> However, if this encouraged people to use names of existing
> externs for their redefined versions -- on the ground of ``always
> being able to use a qualified name'' -- it would be a very bad
> thing, causing confusion, and making many patches hard to reuse...
> 

confusion starts right now:: i (having slept little) cannot think of 
really bad scenarios.
let's try:
xy uses zexy and labels all used zexy-classes with the qualifier "zexy::"
sometimes later someone decides to enhance zexy and makes his own (more 
or less compatible) version called "hexen"
when xy decides to upgrade from zexy to hexen he would have to reprogram 
all his references to the library-objects !
xy could use searchnreplace (not that bad, but some work)

another try:
xx uses ggext compiled as a big library and consequently uses the 
"ggext::" qualifier.
by pure chance, one rainy day xx compiles ggext as a collection of 
separate externals. everything is broken

my aim was, just to allow (!) the using of qualified names.
if i do load 2 libraries providing the same class-names i have to use 
some mechanism to access the objects.
i do not encourage the use of qualified names when writing patches.
i do encourage the use of them when name-clashes arise.

> In the comments below I assume the former...
 >
> please do not call this feature `namespaces'.  From just being

ok ! "qualified names" it be then

>  > (of course it might not prove optimal, but which solution would be ? i
>  > think this is the cleanest solution from a programmers point of view)
> 
> ok, but there is a (confused) user's pov too...

"programmer" meaning "someone programming in the graphical language of pd"



by the way, somehow i am now convinced that "." would be a better 
delimiter 8-)
there is a new patch-file (hopefully more unified than last time) that 
applies Krzysztof's changes (thanks), uses "." as delimiter and fixes 
the bug "/my/long/path/to/externs/library::object" to "library::object"
(without this we could then have concurrent versions of a single library 
running at the same time ....)

mfg..sd
IOhannes


> 
> Krzysztof
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: qualified_names.diff.gz
Type: application/gzip
Size: 1205 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20020829/ea9dba1f/attachment.bin>