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.) http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2001-07/002662.html
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.) http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2008-01/059038.html 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). marius.