[PD] *.lua => *.pd_lua or *.l_lua?

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:03 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> There is nothing stopping anyone from making a .dll on  Windows  
>> with a setup function and sticking it in pd/extra.  If  someone  
>> tried to load it, Pd would make it's best effort, and the  setup  
>> function won't create any inlets or outlets, so it would just  sit  
>> there.
>
> this of course is plain wrong.
>
> the "setup"-function _never_ creates any inlets and outlets, or  
> even an object.
> it is the "new"-function (aka creator) that handles instantiation.
>
> it is perfectly possible to create a dll that does not provide any  
> objectclasses (and is still "loaded" by Pd). it is not possible to  
> instantiate such a nonexistant objectlass though - it would always  
> "just sit there" in dashed lines...

Yes, you're right, I didn't go into detail.  Without the setup  
function being called, the new function will never be called, and  
therefore no inlets and outlets would be created. But this is  
orthogonal to the thread.

The point remains, even though Pd objectclasses on Windows use the  
same file extension as generic libraries (dll), it is not causing  
problems.

.hc

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

The arc of history bends towards justice.     - Dr. Martin Luther  
King, Jr.