[PD-dev] future of [declare]

[Roman Haefeli]

On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 17:55 -0800, Miller Puckette wrote:
> Actually, I think it would be a bad idea to have an abstraction affect the
> search path of the containing patch.  There would be no way for the patch to
> know about the stuff getting added to the path until the abstraction gets
> loaded... but you need the path in place to figure out where the abstraction
> should be searched for.
> 
> I think (probably as you're saying below) that an abstraction's declarations
> should affect only itself and things called from within it.


hi again

my report was bogus due to some other bug i just discovered. the problem
is _not_ that a [declare] directly expands the pathes of any 'ancestral'
patch.
in fact, if a patch containing an abstraction or a child of an
abstraction containing a [declare] object is saved, the patch is saved
with a hidden declare line:

#X declare -stdlib extra/list-abs;

but there is no line:

#X obj 8 8 declare -stdlib extra/list-abs;

and therefore no object [declare] appears in the patch, when opening it
afterwards.

otoh, if the patch is saved before adding a [declare] to the
abstraction, then the [declare] of the [abstraction] does _not_ expand
the pathes of the parent patch. 

roman



		
___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de