[PD] help files was: Re: call for testing on the nightly builds!
reduzierer at yahoo.de
Sun May 18 12:09:55 CEST 2008
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 05:40 -0400, Enrique Erne wrote:
> Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 19:50 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >>>> i'm not a developer but i would vote for declare
> >>>> i.e. [declare -stdlib mrpeach] to packOSC-help.pd
> >>>> then it would work with pd vanilla too.
> >>> The declare/namespace/import stuff is still very undefined, so I
> >>> think some experiementation would be good. I think you should go
> >>> ahead and try it using what you propose. That will be a good test
> >>> case. Then we'll figure out what works best.
> >> putting the helppatches besides the objects should fix most of the
> >> problems, no?
> >> no need for [declare] orgies and such
> > yo.. it would seem strange having to put [declare]s into help-patches in
> > order to load the the objects, that they are explaining, IMO.
> maybe i miss something:
> to it seems _not_ strange to have a working help patch. the declare is
> documenting how one can use the object-class of the external (one of the
> 4, 5... 6 ways).
there are only so many in pd-extended, there aren't that many in
pd-vanilla ( i can think of [declare] and pd-settings file only).
> or do you think a user should configure the plist/pdrc/registry first
> and restart Pd before he can use the documentation/helpfile?
i think, as IOhannes said, that it would make sense to put classes
(libraries, abstractions, single-object files) and their help-files at
the same place. i don't see a benefit in having to tell a help-file
where to find the class.
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
More information about the Pd-list