[PD-dev] proposed fix for objects named with +,-,*,^, etc.

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> 
> So I am able to get objects with +, -, *, and ^ in the name to compile  
> as individual files, I was not able to get objects with / in the name  
> to work, plus they might cause problems with geiger namespaces (i.e.  
> [libname/object]).  But the only problem left is the setup functions.
> 
> AFAIK you are not allowed to have setup functions named mtx_+_setup(),  
> mtx_-_setup() , etc.  So if pd would translate the symbols to a word,  
> like "mtx_plus_setup", like it does for ~, then this whole thing would  
> work.
> 
> Currently, there is a little workaround for objects with aliases.  If  
> you load [mtx_sub], for example, then you can load [mtx_-] since  
> [mtx_sub] will generate the symbol "mtx_-", etc.
> 

oh indeed!

so this is the 3rd mail on this topic.
i really think it is a minor but important issue, that's why i didn't 
understand why everybody ignored my first 2 mails...(so that's why i am 
a bit sarcastic here)

anyhow i'll repeat what i have written:
i think, that the "replacing '~' by 'tilde'" is a very clumsy approach.
there is no real reason, why "mtx_plus_setup()" is better than 
"mtx_add_setup()" or anything else (both are human-readable; none is 
generic)
the real problem i see is, that while we might find "good" replacements 
for +,-,*,^,,,. we will not find a replacement for "etc".

furthermore, there are certain character which cannot be used for 
filenames on certain filesystems (e.g. "||~.pd" as found in zexy is not 
a valid filename on w32)


i thus proposed (and propose again), to have additional (optional) setup 
functions (and filenames) which are encoded in a way, that is "safe".

simplest thing would be, to encode every character with in hexadecimal:
e.g. the external [||~] would be in a file "7c7c7e.pd_linux" and would 
have a setup-function "setupHEX_7c7c7e()"

other things like [mtx_+] could be in a file "mtx_+.pd_linux" and still 
have a setup-function "setupHEX_6d74785f2b()"

i use a different scheme for the setup-function name, to avoid conflicts 
with normal setup-functions (just imagine, somebody made an object that 
is really called [7a7b]; additionally C-functions must not start with 
numbers)

i admit that the hex-encoding is inefficient (in terms of bits) and 
non-readable by humans.
however, it is very simple and consistent.


what do you think?

mfg.a.dsr
IOhannes