[PD-dev] "declare" strangeness in abstractions (0.41 test10)

[Miller Puckette]

At teh moment, "-stdpath" and "-nostdpath" work inside abstractions, and
if you have a calling patch that declares the opposite, it's not clear which
overrides which.  (There's only one global path in effect that affects
both the main patch and all abstractions called up by it).  So there's no
situation that I can think of in which it's a good idea to use "-stdpath" or
"-nostdpath" in an abstraction.  However, I'm scared to take it away so late
in the release cycle so will leave it standing for now.

cheers
Miller

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 02:03:44PM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> hi miller
> 
> will [declare -stdpath] work inside abstractions?
> 
> thanks
> roman
> 
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:32 -0800, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> > 
> > Well, I can't remember now if I was looking at that bug report or if I was
> > having my own problems with declare (I've had many).  I had bad confusion
> > making abstractions use "soundfiler", for instance, and having relative
> > paths get expanded relative to the abstraction instead of the calling patch.
> > However, when an abstraction opens a sub-abstraction as in "x/y", I think
> > it's best to have x/y be relative to the abstraction's location and not the
> > calling patch's.  These two needs seem in direct conflict.  I hope to figure 
> > out a better way to handle this but have given up trying to resolve it 
> > for 0.41.  
> > 
> > I hope nobody is yet throwing "declare" objects in abstractions, as that
> > currently does something so wrong (altering the global path for the calling
> > patch!?) that I thought it better to get rid of the whole thing for now.
> > 
> > cheers
> > Miller
> > 
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:28:20PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I checked out the behaviour of [declare] in the latest test version,
> > > which supposedly should have some fixes according to the release
> > > notes: 
> > > 
> > >   Fixed "declare" which wasn't working properly yet in 0.40-0, and made
> > >   more objects (notably "soundfiler") respect "declared" paths. Path
> > >   entries are relative to the parent patch. Declares inside abstractions
> > >   are ignored.
> > > 
> > > Now I'm not sure, if simply ignoring declares in abstractions is the
> > > right thing (tm) to do. Using the declare-bug.tgz examples from Bug
> > > #1714473 I now cannot make abstractions evaluate declares anymore.
> > > This seems to be intended, but why?
> > > 
> > > The example uses an abstraction, "myabs/test-patch-with-deep-declare"
> > > that includes an instance of [abuse-me], which by [declare -path
> > > ./sub] inside "myabs/test-patch-with-deep-declare.pd" should be taken
> > > from "myabs/sub/abuse-me.pd". But, alas, this isn't found and thus
> > > "myabs/test-patch-with-deep-declare" is broken. Opening
> > > "myabs/test-patch-with-deep-declare.pd" directly will make it find the
> > > correct abuse-me.pd in myabs/sub/abuse-me.pd
> > > 
> > > I believe, the correct behaviour would be to not ignore the declares
> > > in abstractions, but make them act relative to the abstraction's path.
> > > 
> > > Otherwise abstractions would behave differently when opened directly
> > > compared to when used as abstractions, which I think is very
> > > confusing.
> > > 
> > > Ciao
> > > -- 
> > >  Frank Barknecht                                     _ ______footils.org__
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PD-dev mailing list
> > > PD-dev at iem.at
> > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PD-dev mailing list
> > PD-dev at iem.at
> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> 
> 
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de