[PD] pdmtl abstractions questions and comments
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
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