[PD] inconsistencies with lib names

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Sep 19 09:18:56 CEST 2007


Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> 
> On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:23 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> 
>> Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>> Hallo,
>>>
>>>
>>> Another issue would be the use of objects not in Pd core in such a
>>> standard library. In my opinion and for reasons I mentioned several
>>> times during the last days a Pd-std-library should work without
>>> third-party externals (like the "purepd" or list-abs collections).
>>>
>>
>> as far as i have understood it, the standard library wants to duplicate
>> externals: e.g. an object that allows interfacing with the serial port
>> would be a copy of iem/comport that is named hardware/comport (or 
>> whatever).
>> thus it would not rely on "3rd party" externals, but on stdlib
>> "internal" libraries. (with duplicate code and everything that follows
>> from it)
> 
> They key difference would be that each stdlib would have a standardized 
> interface, and each objectclass would conform to that interface.  For 
> example, there could be an 'io' standard lib.  Everything in that lib 
> would respond to [open(, [close(, etc. in the same way, the first inlet 
> would behave similarly, and the first outlet would be the data in the 
> form of lists, and the second outlet would be status info in the form of 
> lists.
> 
> So no, I don't think we should just copy over existing code without 
> change.  Instead, we should use existing code when it's useful, but 
> focus on having a clean and consistent interface for each library.


thats what i meant with "duplicate externals"

mfga.dr
IOhannes




More information about the Pd-list mailing list