Your intention is not clear to me. Would you prefer oscbnk to be wired into
the oentry table at build time, or plugged in at run time? 

We are agreed that some opcodes should be plugins, but what decides which
opcodes are plugins and which are builtins?

I am guessing that one reason for an opcode to be a plugin is a license
that is not obviously compatible with the LGPL.

Original Message:
-----------------
From:  jpff@codemist.co.uk
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:53:24 +0000
To: csound-dev@eartha.mills.edu
Subject: [CSOUND-DEV:3977] Re: csound5 - oscbnk


I would much prefer moving all code in OOps to Opcodes; the current
state is just where I got to when there was a call for the code to be
on SourceForge.
==John ffitch


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

I would prefer as many opcodes as possible to be plugins, and only the
barest core (not sure what, but =, out for sure) remaining.  I thought
that was what was intended and is why I moved so many.
==John ffitch

Hi John and all,

Is it planned to also integrate the opcode libraries into a single
opcode lib, names something like csoundStandardLib.so ?  Would it be a
bad idea to do so?  Just seems like less opcode libs to load at runtime
the better because--as I understand it--when the opcodes from the plugin
libraries are appended to the opcodlst, it has to reallocate memory for
the oldlist plus the new opcodes coming in from the library, then copy
over the old list, and having to do that for multiple libraries I think
would be more expensive an operation that all at one shot.  Please
correct me if I'm incorrect in my understanding of this, or if this is
not an expensive operation and worth ignoring.

Thanks,
steven


On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:30, jpff@codemist.co.uk wrote:
> I would prefer as many opcodes as possible to be plugins, and only the
> barest core (not sure what, but =, out for sure) remaining.  I thought
> that was what was intended and is why I moved so many.
> ==John ffitch
> 
>