[PD] Using [import] [was: Re: sending OSC bundles. + help files?]

Phil Stone pkstone at ucdavis.edu
Fri Sep 12 22:32:19 CEST 2008

Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Phil Stone hat gesagt: // Phil Stone wrote:
>> 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]?
> AFAIK [import] is an external, for vanilla users it would just be an
> additional dependency to install.
> Another problem, maybe bigger problem, is that using [import] like in
> pd-extended requires a certain directory layout. For example to make
> [import mrpeach] work in that it makes [routeOSC] availabe, pd-vanilla
> users not only need [import], they also have to put
> routeOSC.pd_linux|dll|... into a directory "mrpeach" in their path (e.g.
> into "extra") to let [import mrpeach] actually load [routeOSC]. 
> But the problem is not as big as I make it. E.g. vanilla users could use
> an empty abstraction import.pd and keep Martin's objects in the Pd-path
> directly.  They are available as [routeOSC],... directly then. Having the
> empty import.pd will make Pd shut up when [import mrpeach] is used and
> you could use [routeOSC] without prefix just fine. You could not use
> [mrpeach/routeOSC] then, but you don't want to anyway. ;)

Well, it's a little more complicated than one would wish, but at least 
it's possible, then.  Thanks, Frank.


More information about the Pd-list mailing list