[PD] sending OSC bundles. + help files?
Phil Stone
pkstone at ucdavis.edu
Fri Sep 12 19:34:48 CEST 2008
Phil Stone wrote:
> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> The idea is to embed the library settings into the patch. In
>> Pd-0.40.3-extended, if you added this to the patch, it would work for
>> any Pd-0.40.3-extended install:
>>
>> [import mrpeach]
>>
>> Or could use Miller's declare, but I don't remember what the state of
>> the declare bugs were in 0.41.4. It would be something like:
>>
>> [declare -lib mrpeach]
>>
>> or maybe
>>
>> [declare -stdpath extra/mrpeach]
>>
>> .hc
>>
>>
>
> Just to be clear, does this mean if I use [import] in a patch, it
> becomes incompatible with vanilla Pd? Or can [import] be um, imported
> into vanilla Pd?
>
I apologize for following-up my own post, but this is a fairly important
point, and I think it needs clarification. I'm about to release an
abstraction, and I used [import] to eliminate a few dozen [mrpeach/...]
style invocations of Martin Peach's OSC objects. Up until now, my
abstraction would work with vanilla Pd if a couple of externals/libs
were included (mrpeach being one of them). Have I now completely
blocked out any vanilla Pd users by using [import]?
Of course, I could use [declare], but I've seen some questions about
[declare] bugs on this list.
Is my only choice to go back to the redundant (and rather ugly)
[mrpeach/routeOSC] style, in order to be compatible with vanilla Pd?
Is it rude to ask why we are essentially forking a very useful object?
Is there any possibility of this being resolved into one, compatible object?
Phil Stone
www.pkstonemusic.com
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list