[PD] scratching my head about zexy

[Chris McCormick]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:39:51AM -0800, Miller Puckette wrote:
> Well, what I want to be able to do is put max-compatible objects into Pd 
> vanilla (such as gate and scale) without breaking libraries.  However, I
> didn't realize there were libraries out there that named things the same as
> Pd built-ins, with the intention of not ever getting instantiated under
> the original name.
> 
> Maybe, if zexy/pack and zexy/unpack are only meant to be called using
> their "path" names, it would be better to specify them as "zexy/pack"
> etc.  in class_new()?
> 
> If it isn't possible to alias objects with external libraries, I don't see
> how I can ever add a class to Pd once some library appears that uses the
> same name.
> 
> Ideas, anyone?

Hi Miller,

This problem has been 100% solved already:

<http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/pylang/importstatement.html>

The described way of doing things is a win-win for developers and for
users; both get maximum flexibility. I can't think of any good reason
why we are still debating this and [declare] and [import] on this list.

Example:

	[from max import gate]
	[from max import scale]
	[from zexy import *]

then

	[gate]
	[scale]
	[pack] <- inbuilt is overridden

and

	[import max]
	[import zexy]

then 

	[max/gate]
	[max/scale]
	[zexy/pack] <- inbuilt isn't overridden

I hope this doesn't come across too blunt or unconstructive; I just want
to see this issue get solved and disappear.

Best,

Chris.

-------------------
http://mccormick.cx