[PD] another [declare -lib] strangeness

[Miller Puckette]

No, I never tried, thinking, as I do, that it couldn't possibly work :)

Anyway, I can't imagine changing it so close to a release, since anything
that could be considered "correct" would take months of testing to get
working correctly, so, like it or not, I think I have to try to figure out what
it does and make sre it keeps doing that.

cheers
Miller

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 05:48:50PM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 08:25 -0800, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > 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!
> 
> please don't feel offended, but did you seriously test [declare] within
> abstractions? i did test [declare -stdpath] in pd-0.40.3 (see my mail in
> pd-dev [1]) and it works as at least i would expect it: it adds the path
> to the abstractions search pathes only, but not to the parent patch. if
> this is _not_ the expected behaviour, then lets define some [declare]
> test environment for all different flags in order to avoid declare
> confusions in the future.
> 
> [1] http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2008-01/010643.html
> 
> roman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> Der fr?he Vogel f?ngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de