[PD] Fwd: absolute vs relative filepath on oggread~

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On 02/05/2013 04:30 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 19:58 +0100, Òscar Martínez Carmona wrote:
>> hey, still having problems with that, by now I'm doing it with the
>> absolute filepath... maybe the solution it'll be making the main
>> applicattion finding out the f*cking path and sending the whole thing
>> to pd via OSC, or maybe trying it another day!
> 
> If I am not mistaken, it hasn't been mentioned yet (though IOhannes
> assumed it very early) in this thread that [oggread~ ] oddly reads
> relative to Pd's start location (unlike many other classes like
> [textfile] or [readsf~ ] which read relative to the patch's location).
> 
> IMHO, this makes it very difficult for a patch writer to use relative
> paths as the patch doesn't have any notion of where Pd was started from.
> I consider the whole idea of reading relative to Pd's start location
> flawed. A similar case is the 'open patch.pd path' message to [s pd].
> Also this one reads relative to Pd's start location. However,
> considering that it was implemented this way, because it probably
> originates from the '-open' commandline flag, where it makes sense to
> use a path relative to the current working directory for loading a
> patch, this one is excused.  
> 
> For you, this means if your OSC application knows where Pd was started
> from, you need to make it use a path relative to that location.
> Otherwise you you're left with using absolute paths. When dealing with
> objects like [oggread~], I'd go for absolute paths, it's just seems
> safer and saner to deal with.
> 
> (or someone fixes [oggread~ ], which I even wouldn't consider to break
> backwards compatibility as the current implementation doesn't really
> allow to use relativ paths in meaningful way)
> 
> Roman

I agree, relative should be relative to the patch. Please file a bug report on
that.

.hc