[PD] declare who? what?

marius schebella marius.schebella at gmail.com
Tue Jun 3 18:47:38 CEST 2008

Roman Haefeli wrote:
> it would be good to know, if it's only a technical problem, because i
> had the impression, that it is even unclear, how [declare] is supposed
> to work (besides the problem how to make it work how it is supposed to
> work). it would be good know, that there is no need for discussions
> about the ideal behaviour of [declare] anymore.

the discussion goes back to at least 2001 "This is going to be a 
never-ending problem...!" (Miller P.)

but then,
"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!" (Miller P.)
from which I read that (beginning with 0.41) patch-local namespaces 
are/will be working and the intended behaviour for inheritance is that 
abstractions should NOT extend their namespace to the parent patch.
otoh, this still does not say that patches will extend their namespace 
to abstractions used inside them (which - hopefully - will be supported 
in the future.)
now, does this mean that an abstraction can override an object 
declaration of a parent patch (avoiding nameclashes by forcing own 
declarations of objects).

More information about the Pd-list mailing list