[PD] static array/text

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

I said creating 2 arrays with the same name DID NOT give a warning, so that
looked like a bug to me

2018-05-07 15:22 GMT-03:00 Liam Goodacre <liamg_uw at hotmail.com>:

> I didnt know you could have two [array define] with the same name without
> printing "warning: *arrayname*: multiply defined", and this feels like a
> bug to me, because what's the use case here? I treid using [array set] and
> it only did set one of the arrays... (the first one)
>
>
> The use is to warn you against using multiple [array define]'s of the same
> name! That's a dangerous thing to do, since you're never going to know
> which array is being used (unless you happen to remember which one you
> created first).
>
> There are two possibilities: either you want each instance of the array to
> be unique. In that case, use $0. Or, you want only one array. In that case,
> put it outside the abstraction.
>
> well, by using [array set] it gives you the "warning: *arrayname*:
> multiply defined", so there you go... I say this is not "value" behaviour,
> as you still only have one defined array to access
>
>
> PD is complaining that you have multiple [array define]'s, not multiple
> [array set]'s. You can have as many [array set]'s of the same name as you
> want.
>
> However, you're right that it seems to take an [array set] to trigger this
> warning message, which is a bit confusing.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 07 May 2018 19:11
> *To:* Liam Goodacre
> *Cc:* Pd-list
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PD] static array/text
>
> I didnt know you could have two [array define] with the same name without
> printing "warning: *arrayname*: multiply defined", and this feels like a
> bug to me, because what's the use case here? I treid using [array set] and
> it only did set one of the arrays... (the first one)
>
> 2018-05-07 13:41 GMT-03:00 Liam Goodacre <liamg_uw at hotmail.com>:
>
> Seems like the "value behaviour" is something that could be implemented in
> [array define] with a new flag, right?
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the [array] objects already have [value] like
> behavior, in that you can have multiple objects referencing the same array.
> The difference is that with [value], the reference is implicit while with
> [array] it is explicit (ie. [array define]).
>
> The only thing a flag could do would be to tell [array define] to accept
> the first instance of a particular argument and reject the rest. But this
> would lead to a lot of confusion since you could have lots of empty [array
> define]'s scattered around the place.
>
> The best solution is surely to put the array in a parent patch of the
> abstraction. If you don't mind putting it there yourself, you can do as
> Ingo suggested. If you want it to happen automatically, then there are neat
> dynamic patching solutions available.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Pd-list <pd-list-bounces at lists.iem.at> on behalf of Alexandre
> Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 07 May 2018 15:46
> *To:* Pd-list
> *Subject:* Re: [PD] static array/text
>
> Seems like the "value behaviour" is something that could be implemented in
> [array define] with a new flag, right?
>
> 2018-05-07 10:19 GMT-03:00 Antoine Rousseau <antoine at metalu.net>:
>
> In moonlib you can find [sarray] and [slist], which implement the [value]
> behaviour (i.e multiple declarations of a shared data) for array and list
> of symbols.
> They are also dynamically re-assignable.
>
>
> Antoine Rousseau
>   http://www.metalu.net <http://metalu.net> __ htt
> p://www.metaluachahuter.com/
> <http://www.metaluachahuter.com/compagnies/al1-ant1/>
>
>
> 2018-05-07 13:47 GMT+02:00 Ingo Stock <mail at ingostock.de>:
>
> Maybe you can just put the text/array object into the main file, like in
> the attached demo?
>
> best, ingo
>
>
> On 05/07/2018 12:02 AM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> > Is there one way to define a "static" table or text data that can be
> > shared among abstractions? I have a few abstractions which use lookup
> > tables and I realize now that they are basically creating a copy with
> > each instance when they could really share the same data directly. I
> > suppose this would be somewhat related to [value].
> >
> > --------
> > Dan Wilcox
> > @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
> > danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com>
> > robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li
> stinfo/pd-list
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li
> stinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li
> stinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/li
> stinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
> listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20180507/8eb514b3/attachment-0001.html>