[PD] nosferatu namespaces

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Nov 23, 2005, at 5:12 AM, Georg Holzmann wrote:

> Hallo!
>
>> note that the library does not have to implement an object of the  
>> same name. e.g. there is no [Gem] object in Gem, but you still can  
>> load Gem by creating an object [Gem]: the creation will fail but Gem  
>> will be loaded.
>
> yes, an other problem is, that e.g. [zexy] has to be created before  
> [nop] ...
>
>> i think that the [using] object should automatically add (an  
>> optional) library-prefix to objects that cannot be found.
>> imagine you have a patch that contains [using zexy] (how comes this  
>> discussion always concentrates on my libraries...) and [nop].
>> since pd cannot find a [nop] object anywhere in it's space, it would  
>> try to find [zexy/nop] which eventually is an abstraction  
>> ./extra/zexy/nop.pd and thus can be resolved and loaded.
>
> yes, two things about that:
> - this should be local to each abstraction (otherwise reausability of  
> abstractions is not guaranteed - there could be nameclashes ...)

Yes, for sure.  But that'll be a much bigger project.  For now, [using]  
will probably just use the same mechanism as loading a lib with -lib or  
whatever.

> - there should also be a way to not load all externs of a lib (like in  
> python "import nop from zexy" or in C++ "using zexy::nop" ...)

The libdir format/geiger namespaces do this if the objects are  
individual files.  i.e. [zexy/drip].  This is one of the many reasons  
why the Pd-extended builds avoid the old lib format whenever possible.

.hc



>
> (but I think we already discussed this ...)
>
> LG
> Georg
>

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to  
realize his wishes.
Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish.
		                                                -William Carlos  
Williams