[PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report

[Thomas Grill]

Hi all,

>>
>> What about alt_0x3c0x3c0x3c_setup()?  That would highlight that its an  
>
>
> but this really makes and object called [alt_0x3c0x3c0x3c] impossible!
>
>> alternate name, rather than just having an seemingly arbitrary 
>> reversal  of the "setup" placement.  And the function is called  
>> sys_load_lib_alt().  That makes more sense in terms of the API.
>
>
> well calling it sys_load_lib_alt() was a very fast decision (so i am 
> not proud of it).
> i still think that the alternative setup function should be called 
> fundamentally differently, so that it is impossible to make an object 
> with a normal setup-function that is named like the alternative 
> function of another object.
>
> but probably it would be nice to hear somebody else's opinion on this 
> (at least from those who are not entirely bored of this thread)
>
using my loader patch the naming of the loader function would be 
irrelevant since it's just including in a chain of loader functions, 
starting with the classic (now called sys_loader_lib_internal) PD loader.

Concerning the setup function naming - how about xyz_altsetup ?
it's true that it should be distinguished from the old naming, but 
should not have a prefix that excludes some object names.

best greetings,
Thomas

-- 
Thomas Grill
http://grrrr.org