[PD] sending OSC bundles. + help files?

Martin Peach martin.peach at sympatico.ca
Fri Sep 12 20:56:16 CEST 2008

The easiest thing would be to put all those objects directly in the extra 


>From: Phil Stone <pkstone at ucdavis.edu>
>To: PD list <pd-list at iem.at>
>Subject: Re: [PD] sending OSC bundles. + help files?
>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:34:48 -0700
>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 
>Phil Stone
>Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 

More information about the Pd-list mailing list