[PD-dev] Proposals for object categories

João Pais jmmmpais at googlemail.com
Fri Feb 27 00:55:35 CET 2009

> I doubt that these categories will be as hierarchical and structured as  
> proposed here.
> for example the pdp objects, gridflow and gem(pix and particle+related  
> objects) are good examples for libraries.

as I wrote before, I think that coherent libraries (like the ones you said  
+ vasp and a couple more) exclude themselves from the general  
external-jungle, and deserve a subcategory of their own. I imagine that  
the categorising process should help in grouping the objects , but to make  
a "transparent" and understandable structure - instead of making things  
more complicated.
Maybe each category should have a "vanilla" subsection as well?

> but zexy and cyclone are libraries where even after so many years I  
> still don't know what some of the objects do or to which library they  
> belong, so here the categorizations could make sense.

exactly. in the contrary of the before mentioned libraries, these are more  
groups of externals compassing different groups: glue, math, matrix, ...

> still, I think this is much more important for documentation and  
> pedagogical reasans than with relation to avoiding nameclashes or  
> similar, because then we would still end up with two gate objects in the  
> same categorization...

that is also my point (and was actually in the original discussion). but  
one doesn't avoid the other. in the end of  
http://puredata.info/dev/PdLibraries I also listed the latest efforts  
(that I remind of) in this respect. independently of the result of the  
previous section, an efficient indexing method should also be pursuited -  
and to remind developpers that documentation is important.
maybe this section could go to another page and be discussed independently.

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list