[PD] standard library (was Re: [PD-announce] Pd-extended 0.43.4 released!)

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Jan 31 09:38:24 CET 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-01-30 22:40, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> A quick internet translations makes me think that I agree with
> what cyrille is saying.  The preferences shouldn't be used for
> loading libraries, as they have been in pd and especially
> Pd-extended for a long time.  Pd-extended no longer lets you set
> libraries to load from the preferences, this is one step to get us
> on the right direction.  I've been thinking about other things as
> well,

i'm still very skeptic about the possibility that there is "one" right
direction.

> here's how I'm thinking:
> 
> * new standard library that is larger and more consistent than 
> what's in vanilla, things like all math and logic objects both 
> message and signal included, rather than needed to load a library 
> (i.e. zexy) for some of them.

i'm not sure i really understand the sentence.
but i guess it is mainly suggesting to move objects of general value
to a so called "standard library" that provides the basic needs.

one question os of course, what a "basic" need is.
e.g. personally i would vote for a minimum set of math-like operators,
rather than high-level user-friendly objects. e.g. [>~]
but not [moog~].
others might think very differently about this.

> It would prioritize correctness and consistency over backwards 
> compatibility.
> 
i agree, that a so called "standard library" is a *must*.

> * no libraries but the standard library loaded by default.

note that many languages (including C and python) don't automatically
load their standard libraries.
however, they do have a standard library.
and they provide primitives that allows you to use the language even
without any standard library.

from the users's perspective it's probably a good "default" to load a
stdlib, but one could easily introduce a "-nostdlib" flag to override
that.

> * all of Pd-vanilla's objects as a separate 'vanilla' library.

how would that be different from the standard library?
i guess the stdlib most likely will contain more objects than vanilla,
and some objectclasses would not be part of stdlib or under another
name ([makefilename] springs to my mind).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlEKLX0ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvR4IgCeLjnGVP95jO7SwTL9v/PKBdwQ
c9wAnjWlQs+ethcLueD7EmNE3umt3u4d
=AgIj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Pd-list mailing list