[PD] another [declare -lib] strangeness
mpuckett at imusic1.ucsd.edu
Wed Jan 23 17:25:55 CET 2008
Hmm. It never occured to me that people would want to put declare objects
inside abstractions (I think it's unwise to do so because there's no way
to contain the declare object's effects to within the abstraction.)
That it's adding stuff to the parent patch is a serious bug; there's no
reason to believe that putting declare in abstractions is doing a useful
thing at all at present!
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:58:38PM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> originally i wanted to write the following feature-request:
> using [declare] to load libraries (e.g. [declare -lib mylib]) works nicely.
> however, when i have several abstractions all depending on the same
> library (and thus all have an instance of [declare -lib mylib]), i get
> an error "mylib: already loaded" for each abstraction depending on
> "mylib" but the first.
> would it be possible to suppress this warning? (i don't see a reason to
> keep it)
> i wrote a wee example to illustrate this behaviour, and while doing so i
> noticed a real weirdness:
> when i save a patch holding an abstraction with a [declare -lib mylib],
> this parent patch will also have the "#X declare -lib mylib" line
> (without a direct representation in the patch)
> what is even weirder is, that it gets an additional line for each
> abstraction containing a [declare].
> e.g. if i have 4 instances of an abstraction in my patch, i will get 4
> additional declare-lines.
> loading this patch, i will get 7 errors that "mylib: already loaded" (4
> warnings from the abstractions; 3 warnings from the patch; only the 1st
> declare-line in the patch gets evaluated properly)
> is this by design?
> or is it a "bug"? (i cannot see any harm right now, but it is a bit
> all this is happening with Pd-0.41-0test11 on linux.
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list