Guenter's model (was: Re: [PD] Re: Mac OS X installer with library documentation)
czaja at chopin.edu.pl
Wed Mar 30 12:36:47 CEST 2005
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> If we have the core objects directly in the standard path (../extra),
> then we can have the various additions in subfolders of that path. As
> long as the objects are compiled as individual files, they can be
> instantiated separately. A while back, I posted an example of this
yes, it is a good start, certainly better than having no structure
Guenter's model has two parts. One part is that any non-standard
object name is to be qualified by the relative path to its class'
library. Second part is that any library may provide only a single
These two parts are unrelated. If the first part, using GG's
qualifiers, was widely adopted, then multi-class libraries would
just be expected to pass qualified names to class_new(), or
class_new() itself would be easily modified to impose that.
I think it is time to stop arguing for and against multi-class
libraries, because the actual challenge is in designing a good
model for the context in which a patch loads and operates,
maintaining a consistent behaviour in different environments and
through a long time.
PS. GG's qualifiers are a good start, but they are not going to
work, unless one of the following happens:
. the set of predefined externals is always empty
. all predefined externals are loaded at startup
. class_new() is changed, so that [another/class] does not declare [class]
Besides, all externs using class_setsavefn() would have to be
PPS. Explicit use of GG's qualifiers is ugly and takes too much
space. Some kind of abstraction-scoped "import" mechanism would
be necessary, anyway ([declare]?).
More information about the Pd-list