[PD-dev] help me with my DLL snafu

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jan 9, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Thomas Grill wrote:

>
>>  so you can just use the native .so extension
>
> Sorry, i forgot to mention it, but as stated in my original proposal  
> (in December), platform-native shared library extensions  
> (.so,.dll,.dylib) should be supported as well.

Why do we need to support the platform-specific shared lib formats?  I  
think this will just add confusion for no real gain that I can see.

> Still, to avoid name-clashes with system or third-party libraries  
> having a pd-specific extension is important. .pdo doesn't sound too  
> bad (.pdx and .pdb don't seem to be good, because ambigous choices)

Do we really need to use a 3 character extension?  I mean how many  
people are really using DOS any more?  .pd_darwin and .pd_linux have  
been working fine for a long time, Windows has no problem with .jpeg  
and .html for example.

.pdo is taken by Microsoft.  It looks like basically all .pd?  
extensions are taken:

http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EP

We could make it technically correct (for single file objects at least)  
and use .pdclass.  But .pdext seems acceptable.

.hc
________________________________________________________________________ 
____

"Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is  
related to the telescope."
                                                           -Edsger  
Dykstra