[PD] new object: [path] - following the example of [import]

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at
Thu Dec 1 20:28:08 CET 2011

On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:14 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> On 2011-12-01 19:41, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>> #3 could anybody tell me, why [declare] is implemented in a way that it
>>> doesn't take immediate effect?
>> Its a tricky problem because if you have a patch, then you add [declare], [path] or [import] to it it could modify how the existing part of the patch is loaded the next time its opened since the #X declare stuff would then be loaded first.
> actually i don't see much problems here.
> if i create a patch with a [loadbang]->[; pd quit( then the patch will
> behave differently during creation time (it will do nothing) and during
> runtime (it will quit Pd).
> if i want to have the effect at creation time, i can manually bang
> whatever is connected to [loadbang].
> otoh, when i add [declare -path foo/], this is usually because i found
> out that a certain path is missing, and i cannot proceed with patching,
> until that path is added.
> the current situation makes it really complicated for people who had no
> clue what they wanted to do when they started Pd.

I think its better to have it added immediately, that's one reason why I wrote [import] and [path].  But its far from the ideal behavior.  One example of where it could cause problems is when it causes a different object to be loaded under a given name, i.e.:

[import foolib2]

[foo] could be already loaded from foolib1, then when this patch is reloaded, it'll be from foolib2.



There is no way to peace, peace is the way.       -A.J. Muste

More information about the Pd-list mailing list