[PD] a [wrap~] for control computation ?

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Nov 10 19:38:36 CET 2004

guenter geiger wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Marc Boon wrote:
>>These two points clearly illustrate the need for namespaces in Pd.
> I don't agree. I think the solution would be to have only one wrap.

i think that there is no possibility to acchieve this, as we can easily 
see if we have a look at the archives. this problem has been discussed 
for several years now.
quoting Krzysztof:
 >> So, I really do not know, if this is going to be a real step
 >> forward, or just a fuel keeping this thread alive for some more
 >> time?

this has been in august 2002 !! note the resignation on the length of 
the thread.

pd itself can easily be kept simple and orthogonal without nameclashes.
i don't believe that externals/libraries can.

> But I give up

me too.

i have checked it in


More information about the Pd-list mailing list