[PD] relative pathes: problems with [open(-message to pd

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 10:14 +0800, Chris McCormick wrote: 
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:20:01PM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:04 +0100, Steffen wrote:
> > > On 22/03/2007, at 23.41, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > > 
> > > > When opening patches by sending messages to pd, the path is  
> > > > relative to
> > > > pd's startup-location. when loading other files (text-, audio-,
> > > > data-files etc) the path is set relative to the location of the patch.
> > > > since the patch doesn't know, where pd was started, you actually  
> > > > cannot
> > > > use relative pathes when opening patches by messages without:
> > > 
> > > Maybe [declare] can help you? (Pd >= 0.40)
> > 
> > i'm afraid, it doesn't. as i understand [declare], it lets you add
> > pathes, so that it finds abstractions or libs. but it doesn't help, when
> > opening a patch by message to pd. 
> > 
> > but it's a good point to point to [declare], since it lets you decide
> > between relative to patch and relative to pd. i'd like to have the same
> > opportunity for the [open(-message. 
> > 
> > actually there are three different relative paths involved in pd:
> > 
> > - relative to pd
> > - relative to patch
> > - relative to start-up location
> > 
> > i claim to deprecate the latter. i think, now everyone knows about my
> > opinion about this topic ;-)
> > 
> > it would be nice to hear more voices. does anything speak _for_
> > 'relative to start-up location'?
> 
> Yep. If I understand your meaning correctly, 'relative to start-up
> location' is useful in situations where you are building an
> application that uses Pd at it's core. You want the patches to start
> up correctly no matter where the user installs the entire package for
> Puredata+Gem+application patches. This is the case with the Ergates
> program I announced on this list a while ago. I'm building a windows
> installer for it (very slowly) and I don't think it would work without
> relative to start-up paths.

hm.... i think i see, what you mean. whenever a set of patches and/or
externals is packed together with a startup-file (bash-script for unix,
bat-file for windows), it seems to make sense to specify pathes relative
to the start-up location for [open(-message. i say 'it seems', because -
afaict - this 'relativity' to start-up in the [open(-message is never
really used. when you open the patches directly from the script using
the '-open' option, you don't need the [open(-message in pd it-self. and
when you afterwards open other patches from the main-patch, you could
easily open them with pathes relative to the patch. as far as i can see
it, there is still no case, where you really need 'relative to
start-up'. 
if i missed your point here, can you please elaborate a bit more, why
Ergate _does_ need 'relative to start-up' for [open(-message?

roman






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