[PD] pdmtl abstractions questions and comments

Patco megalegoland at yahoo.fr
Mon Jul 2 17:08:21 CEST 2007

Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
>  The same section says that prefixes are to be turned into geiger 
> namespaces, that is, folders. Let's say that the folder is named 
> "patate". But then I cannot use the original [poil] anymore in that 
> folder because pd picks up the locally defined [patate/poil] as being 
> poil itself, hiding the prefixless [poil] that I need. Therefore a 
> prefix is required. Then I might call it patate/patate_poil.pd, but 
> that's redundant, so I remove the folder so that it's just called 
> [patate_poil], and then we're back to prefixes. However if pd wasn't 
> doing that and if there wasn't [import] then the slash wouldn't be 
> anything more than a tilted underscore. So what are those guidelines 
> good for?
Thanks to make 'what namespace is' clear.
> If you mean that there wouldn't be namespaces and instead there would 
> be a non-arborescent taxonomy whose purpose would still be to organise 
> similar objects together documentation-wise, then I would say that I 
> agree.
I vote for no namespace, no prefix, it's difficult enough to organize 
files for pd, and many prefixes won't work with externals that requires 
a script, for example
if I put my python scripts into extra/python, I'd call the script with 
[pyext] with a namespace like that [py python/myscript myclass] but 
obviously it won't work, in fact I'd have to start pd with -path python 
or put the script into the patch's folder and put no namespace for the 
script file reconized, same thing with tcl scripts, etc...
 I'd add that a good taxonomy should take into account any pd and 
external related files.

More information about the Pd-list mailing list