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

Phil Stone pkstone at ucdavis.edu
Fri Sep 12 22:40:07 CEST 2008

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2008, at 2:45 PM, 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. ;)
> Or even easier, just copy the "mrpeach" folder in extra from a Pd- 
> extended build into your Pd-vanilla install's extra folder.  Done.   
> Then you can use namespace prefixes too, like [mrpeach/routeOSC].
> .hc

Yes, but the [import mrpeach] objects would throw errors, unless the 
pure-Pd end-user created empty [import] objects, as Frank pointed out.  
There doesn't seem to be a solution that is "one-size-fits-all."

I know that the namespace problem in general is still under 
construction, and I'm happy to have [import], but it would be nice if 
there weren't such an incompatibility with vanilla Pd.  Is there any 
chance that [declare] could be the solution for both builds -- what 
obstacles are there to that?


More information about the Pd-list mailing list