[PD] scratching my head about zexy

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Roman Haefeli wrote:
> hi all, hi IOhannes
> 
> after having installed pd 0.42.0test5, i assumed to have discovered a
> behaviour change of [unpack] and [pack], until i noticed:
> 
> a) zexy comes with its own version of [pack] and [unpack].
>    why are they called the same? i really don't get that.

because they are meant as a better (but obviously buggy) replacement of 
pack.

> 
> b) in pd 0.42.0test5 they seem to override the built-in classes.
>    is this a bug? if yes, pd's or zexy's?

it's a feature of Pd.

> 
> c) the zexy versions can explicitly be called by using the 'zexy/'
>    prefix. how is that possible, although zexy was compiled as
>    multi class library? is that _the_ solution to have multiclass
>    libs and separate namespaces at the same time?

this is because zexy's [pack] explicitely asks to be named [zexy/pack].

the reason for this is, that i wanted to make explicit that this is not 
the built-in pack. so people could basically chose which flavour they 
wanted. the other reason is of course, that prior to 0.42, there was no 
way to overwrite a built-in, so i had to come up with a different name 
(and [zexy/pack] was somehow more appealing than anything else).

now all of this would not be a problem, if my object's "primary" name 
would not be "pack" - which it is in order to express the intention of 
this object. it was a safe thing to do in the olde days :-)
(and it would be even less a problem if it behaved comaptible with the 
original [pack])

i will fix the name-clash asap.

the more interesting thing would be an idea to make zexy's pack really 
compatible with the built-in version.
the best thing i can currently come up with is to make zexy's pack 
interprete its arguments differently.
e.g. [zexy/pack f s] would output [list f s(
and zexy's [pack f s] would output [list 0 symbol( but still would 
output [list s 0( when somebody would send a [list s 0( _into_ this object.


fmga.fdas
IOhannes