Le 14/02/2011 12:36, IOhannes m zmoelnig a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-02-14 12:06, cyrille henry wrote:
is it normal that every pix_blablabla object get instancied as a pix_freeframe object?
yes this is normal. FreeFrame (and frei0r) also register loaders, so you can instantiate these effects as [pix_<pluginname>].
(with a "error: GemException: couldn't find 'blablabla'.''")
could be that i increased verbosity with one of the last commits, so you actually notice that freeframe is involved (as opposed to the object simply failing to create)
just to make sure: freeframe/frei0r loaders should only take effect if there is actually such a plugin. e.g. if you create [pix_blabla] and there is no FreeFrame plugin named "blabla" but there is an abstraction pix_blabla.pd in your path, you should still end up with the abstraction.
if there is no freeframe plugin, and no abstraction, then what is the pix_blabla object? something that don't do anything? except breaking connection of your patch, since this object have only 1 inlet. so, i think it would be more logic that pix_blabla does not instantiate. but that's not really important.
c
fg asdrm IOhannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1ZE8QACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRjAQCgnI6g9PAF1BO8bOyImNY0zAgD v7gAoMlGvxC6mL6WXYhQGrW1lxvxuRTq =etwb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev