[PD-dev] pow~ in Cyclone [was: Re: stripping down Pd-extended's default libs]
hans at eds.org
Tue Feb 17 06:03:34 CET 2009
On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:58 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>> Matt Barber hat gesagt: // Matt Barber wrote:
>>> At least we know it was an intentional difference:
>>> For extended would it be possible to exclude cyclone pow~ from the
>>> library, or less drastically patch both cyclone and vanilla pow~ to
>>> throw a warning, as was discussed last april?
>> This is not related to Pd-extended which AFAIK doesn't include
>> as a library (a "-lib" loadable one), but when loaded as a lib,
>> does some magic to even overwrite Pd internals. I made a little check
>> now and actually Cyclone then is very smart and aliasses the
>> builtins to
>> different names.
>> Running "pd-0.42 -lib cyclone" gives this:
>> warning: class 'pow~' overwritten; old one renamed 'pow~_aliased'
>> and now the [pow~] behaves like in Max, while [pow~_aliased] is the
>> pow~ from 0.42. That's pretty cool, actually.
> from what i have understood, it is not cyclone's ability to replace
> built-ins, but it is a so called new feature of pd 0.42. the same
> happens also with zexy's [pack] and [unpack] and many others.
> why is that so cool? i personally find it _very much_ confusing, that
> you cannot be sure anymore to use only pd-vanilla classes, when
> libraries are loaded. this new feature makes it impossible to stick
> only-vanilla classes in one patch, where another one in the same
> instance of pd loads some libs. for me, the vanilla classes were some
> last 'safe' ressort, which is now polluted and messy, and i have to
> on thirdparty authors, and i need to trust them, that they write their
> externals compatible to the internals, so that my patches don't break.
> shouldn't the core library considered to be holy and untouchable, at
> least this one?
> then again, as you say, this new features introduces _another_
> difference between pd-extended and vanilla: overriding internal
> works only with libs and not with single-class-per-file collections.
> why keeping backwards compabitility (which is the mentioned reason,
> this new feature was introduced) on _any_ cost, even on cost of
> patches and introducing new incompatibilities?
> i am confused / confused / confused.....
I think Roman is illustrating the dangers of this overriding approach
very well. I think that this also highlights the advantages of making
the vanilla internals into a distinct library and having the library
configuration as part of the patch. Then you can specify [import
vanilla] and you will be sure that your [pow~] will be the vanilla
pow~ regardless of the user's local setup. That means that your patch
is much more likely to run on many more machines.
'You people have such restrictive dress for women,’ she said, hobbling
away in three inch heels and panty hose to finish out another pink-
collar temp pool day. - “Hijab Scene #2", by Mohja Kahf
More information about the Pd-dev