[PD-dev] 0.42 overwriting class-definitions...

[Chris McCormick]

Hi Miller,

With respect to this and other compatability breakages which you are
very careful to avoid, I wonder if you have any plan to release a
version (0.50 maybe?) which specifically says that it will break
backwards compatability and fixes some of the little annoying bits in
Pd?

Best,

Chris.

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:32:21AM -0700, Miller Puckette wrote:
> I'm still trying to figure out how to do this "right"... for years I've
> been unable to put some key objects into Pd 'vanilla' because they would
> then shadow objects of the same name in libraries, sometimes with somewhat
> different designes (e.g., the infamous "pow~").  The only solution I
> can see is to allow libraries to shadow built-in objects.
> 
> This has a side effect that you noticed: you now have to load libraries
> in the opposite order than you did before in order to get some desired
> version of "counter" or "prepend".
> 
> Also, "declare" and the search path mechanism themselves are in flux -- it
> might prove necessary to allow relative paths to be interpreted relative
> to abstractions and/or the calling patch.  (example: an abstraction in
> "lib/" has a table that you ask to open "foo.wav" in "snd/" -- should that
> mean "snd/" relative to the calling patch (the normal thing to expect) or
> relative to the abstraction?)  I think there's a lot of thinking needed
> here before we can settle on a long-term solution.
> 
> cheers
> Miller
> 
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:42:09PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> > IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> > 
> > > this eventually breaks existing startup patches.
> > 
> > this of course should say "existing startup scripts" or the like
> > 
> > fgmasdr
> > IOhannes
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-dev mailing list
> > Pd-dev at iem.at
> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> 
> 
-------------------
http://mccormick.cx